Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to speak in support of the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005. This is but one of three major initiatives to change how the government helps people deal with family breakdown. First, we have new community services worth $397 million, including the new network of family relationship centres, one of which will be established in my electorate in the town of Wodonga. I am pleased the Attorney-General has announced that north-east Victoria will benefit from this initiative. Second, I was pleased to see the announcement the other day by the Minister for Family and Community Services of child support reforms that improve on a system that has not worked to the advantage of children. Instead, it has mainly worked to the advantage of deceitful custodial parents. Third is the bill I am speaking on today. This bill finally moves away from the stifling language of Whitlam era social progress. It is a bill that takes seriously the myriad problems that face custodial and non-custodial parents today. In practical terms, if we elevate the notion of relationships to being the No. 1 issue in society, this will be one of the most important bills that we as parliamentarians will ever debate.

This bill is the culmination of many years of parliamentary work, reflecting the serious nature of this issue. Back in June 2003 the Prime Minister announced the House of Representatives Family and Community Services Committee inquiry, which produced the very moving and very sobering report Every picture tells a story in December 2003. An exposure draft of this legislation was considered by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, of which I am a member, which reported late last year. This bill, in combination with the other two prongs of the Australian government’s approach to family law reform, recognises some important realities that we need to keep in mind in this place.

Governments cannot legislate for the failure of marriage. Governments should not allow vindictive parents to lock one parent out of their child’s life on the grounds of a baseless allegation. Governments should, where possible, encourage cooperation, not litigation, and move away from the adversarial and litigation based spectacles that unfortunately beset many family breakdowns and settlements. Governments should ensure that the best interests of the child are at the heart of any settlement. And governments should ensure that the best interests of a child include, all things being equal, a meaningful relationship with both parents. Family law should not be couched as a male-female 1970s outdated gender equality battle. I have had numerous complaints from non-custodial fathers in my electorate who, despite their best efforts, can be locked out of their child’s life. The category I have the most complaints from is the mother of a non-custodial father or the second wife of a non-custodial father.

Despite numerous hours of bipartisan work on this bill, the member for Gellibrand moved an amendment that really does not reflect this bipartisan cooperation. It was interesting that yesterday the member for Melbourne stated that the Labor Party believes these reforms are a move in the right direction generally and that Labor supports the bills but has some concerns. The truth is that the member for Gellibrand circulated an amendment that fundamentally undermines this legislation. This amendment harks back to the failed policies that we have had to date where baseless allegations of violence can lock one parent out of a relationship, and it removes the need to attend mediation in a genuine fashion. It reflects the battle between the old leftists and feminist sisterhood and the ALP members who know the real concerns and needs of middle Australia. Labor is shamelessly positioning itself as supporting the bill while the member for Gellibrand seeks to neuter it. The Labor Party knows that these reforms will be welcomed by the community and that the community has waited for a long time for these reforms. At the end of the day the opposition lacks the courage to acknowledge the truth.

The shadow Attorney-General, whose ideological stance made her the lone dissenter on the House Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on this topic, has bullied her more sensible colleagues into opposing this bill by the back door with an amendment that effectively kills it. Then again, what do you expect from someone fashioned in the old style of the Labor sisterhood? Someone from a very privileged, comfortable, middle-class background, who was educated at MLC, has the temerity to tell workers what they need and what they want. Then again, the member for Gellibrand is the same member who said that I did not understand anything about the multicultural community in which we live. If by ‘a multicultural community’ she means those who come from non-English-speaking backgrounds then I invite her to have a cup of tea with me and I can tell her all about it.

Back to the main points of this bill. Schedule 1 provides the central presumption of shared parental responsibility. Under this, the court will have to consider children spending equal time with both parents, but only where that is practicable. If that is not the case then the court will consider arrangements involving substantial and significant time in the day-to-day lives of children—and not just at weekends and holidays but a mix of days and nights. The courts will also need to consider which parents fail in undertakings or orders—that is, not paying child support or absence when handing over the children, as just some of the matters.

New section 68CC establishes a two-tiered approach, where at first the benefit of having a meaningful relationship with both parents is considered, along with the need to protect the child from physical and/or psychological harm. The next level is views expressed by the child and the relationship of the child with grandparents and other people. This is an important move. It does reflect the reality that we can no longer separate men and women in terms of their employment, level of income or share of parental care. The best resolution to a dispute is not one that is imposed on the parties but one they reach themselves, and this longstanding policy of the government is advanced here, where parties are encouraged to resolve their disputes in a non-adversarial manner.

Schedule 2 strengthens existing enforcement mechanisms to ensure that agreements are sustained. Schedule 3 will ensure that child related proceedings are child focused, less adversarial, less traumatic and easier for people to access. Schedule 4 ensures that dispute resolution is supported so that quality counselling and dispute resolution services are available to help settlement occur outside court. The amendment by the member for Gellibrand which removes the requirement to attend dispute resolution in a genuine fashion is indeed quite damaging to the Labor Party’s claim of support for the fundamentals of this bill.

Schedule 5 replaces ‘child representative’ with ‘independent children’s lawyer’ to represent the child’s interest. Schedule 6 protects a child from violence and provides state and territory magistrates with relevant instructions. Schedule 7 provides that no limit on property matters exists for the Federal Magistrates Court.

I welcome the debate on this bill and have been impressed by many of the contributions that members have made not only in the debate on the bill but in the preceding months, indeed years, of discussion that have led to it. I commend all those members who have made a heartfelt effort and who do care about families and about family breakdown and its impact on the communities within their electorates. I commend the bill to the House.

Harry Quick (Franklin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, like other speakers in this place, welcome the opportunity to speak on this most important piece of legislation, the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005. All of us who had the privilege to be part of the then House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs were involved in a frenetic round of hearings that consumed each and every waking moment of our lives for just over nine non-sitting weeks in 2003. We can now see the light at the end of the tunnel.

As a member in this place one is provided with an opportunity to make a difference. I know that is a well-worn cliche, but in this case it is true. Our groundbreaking report produced under the chairmanship of the member for Riverina, Kay Hull, entitled Every picture tells a story:Report on the inquiry into child custody arrangements in the event of family separation, was a bestseller. Thousands of copies were sought by people from all walks of life. The issue we tackled was complex, to say the least. As a committee we were charged with inquiring into, reporting on and making recommendations for action on the following:

(a)

given that the best interests of the child are the paramount consideration:

(i)

what other factors should be taken into account in deciding the respective time each parent should spend with their children post separation, in particular whether there should be a presumption that children will spend equal time with each parent and, if so, in what circumstances such a presumption could be rebutted; and

(ii)

in what circumstances a court should order that children of separated parents have contact with other persons, including their grandparents.

(b)

whether the existing child support formula works fairly for both parents in relation to their care of, and contact with, their children.

(c)

with the committee to report to the Parliament by 31 December 2003.

This issue, which as I said is complex and probably one of the most divisive in our society, impinges on a huge number of families across the length and breadth of our country. It results in trauma for children, parents, grandparents and close family members, and, sadly, it often results in violence and death. Family break-up is a sad reality of modern life, and daily we as members in this place can see at first hand the after-effects of marriage breakdown. We are challenged and confronted to try to sort out the mess, and in many cases we are expected to pick up the pieces. As with the debate we had recently on RU486, members who speak on this bill speak from their hearts because all of us have in some way been touched and affected by this issue.

Just over 30 years ago massive changes were made to the Family Law Act by the then Attorney-General, Senator Murphy. Just over 30 years later we are once again looking at real and significant changes. This bill is a culmination of many years of work by a large number of people, not only the House committee on which I served but also the House Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs chaired by the Hon. Peter Slipper.

It is a shame in a way that in these last stages of the debate we see members in this place behaving and speaking much like divorcing couples, each accusing the other of being wrong and believing they have the right to impose their will on the other. I think that is sad. Our committee in those nine frenetic weeks of touring was confronted by all aspects of this very complex issue. There are no right or wrong ways. I would like to pay a tribute to the Attorney-General because, as with the Attorney-General 30 years ago, he has to have the wisdom of Solomon. When families break down there is trauma. Let us be honest: there are many members of the House of Representatives who have gone through divorce and know at first hand how difficult it is when you split up from your partner and when there are children involved. We have a crazy enough lifestyle as it is in this place, being away from our families for 20 weeks a year, and for probably another 10 weeks wandering around Australia doing committee work. So when our families do split up for a variety of reasons, we go through exactly the same trauma as the people we are expecting to look after when we put in place this bill.

As I said, it is a shame that many in this place are behaving just like those divorcing couples. The phrase ‘the best interests of the children’ should be imprinted on our foreheads, because that is what we should be basing this legislation on. It should not be about the best interests of mum, or dad, or both sets of grandparents, or extended families but about the best interests of the children. We are not talking about 5,000, 10,000, 20,000, 100,000 or 200,000 children; we are talking about close on a million children. They call them the McDonalds children, because every second weekend they travel from the resident parent to the non-custodial parent to see dad or, in a few cases, mum—every second weekend and half the school holidays, if they are lucky. One million children.

As a teacher of 23 years experience, I know the trauma that these kids go through, because I have seen them in the classroom after they have seen dad or mum on their fortnightly visit. The kids are traumatised, and we as teachers are expected to educate these kids. People on either side should not  wax lyrical about how they are right and others are wrong and put forward amendments and give examples of post-feminist crap or whatever. We need to go back and look at what is in the best interests of the children.

When we look at the wonderful report, which I am proud to have been a part of, and at the figures on parental care arrangements—table 1.3, at page 13, records the frequency of visits—we can see starkly just how many children only see their other parent infrequently. We are dealing with a monster. I imagine that when these children who come from blended families form relationships they are going to create more problems than we can shake a stick at—unless we get this legislation right and sort it out and throw the responsibility back on the husband and the wife.

If we were to say in this place when we come to have a vote, ‘Hands up all those who have gone through divorce?’ the general population might be amazed but would not be surprised, because one in three marriages end up in divorce, and that is a hell of a lot. This legislation is groundbreaking. It is an honest, serious attempt to get the problem resolved. When we put our report out, we upset the fathers, we upset the mothers, we upset the Family Court lawyers and we upset the Family Court. And the 10 members of the committee thought that we must have done something right—‘They are all upset’, which is wonderful.

We were overwhelmed with submissions—there were something like 1,700 submissions. We heard from all angles. The thing that really worried me was the involvement of lawyers. I do not particularly like lawyers—I must admit that quite honestly and frankly. They are a blight on our society. You only have to look at the tax laws to see how well they have organised our lives to make it so confusing that you have to rely on them. When it comes to family law, it is almost as bad.

There is a rush to go and see your lawyer and get an apprehended violence order. First in gets the house and is able to lock the other person out. There is this fixation with confrontation. I am happy that the recommendation of our bipartisan report was to send them packing. They are the last resort. The best interests of the children should be paramount. Sit down and work out a responsible parenting plan and do not have these stupid arguments, such as, ‘My religion is more important than your religion,’ ‘John has to go the local Catholic school rather than the local primary school,’ ‘Your parents cannot see him,’ and, ‘I’m going to go the lawyer and make sure I punish you.’

The sad thing about divorce is that two people who once committed themselves to vows in front of a whole bunch of their family and friends resort to tearing each other apart. The sad cover of this wonderful report, illustrated by one of the children who went through the trauma, tells it all. It tells it better than we in this place, who are supposed to be articulate, can tell it, because they have gone through it.

With this legislation, it is sad that we have to see amendments. It is sad that we have to focus on some issues. The issue that is usually focused on is that of violence. There are so many wonderful things in this legislation, and sadly we on this side of the fence are looking at the wrong part of it. We need to get the family relationship centres operational right across Australia—and not just parked in certain seats so there is an opportunity to win or retain them. They have to be where there is the greatest need. I know that in most cases they are, but I think that the people in my area, which has regional and rural towns, should have the same opportunity as people in the big CBDs. They are no different; their marriage break-up rates are exactly the same as those of the people living in the CBDs.

I know the people who work in these relationship centres and the wonderful work they do. Today I publicly pay tribute to them, because they do not have an easy job sorting out the mess, trying to impose some discipline and structure in the best interests of the children. Sure, there is violence—we read of it daily, where frustrated fathers kill themselves and their children or kill their former wives—but I think to focus solely on that is going about it the wrong way. We need to focus on the positive aspects in the best interests of the children. And the best interests of the children are to make sure that there is a responsible parenting plan put in place by the mother and father that includes the grandparents on both sides and also those in the extended family. Let us face it: with the complexity of modern-day life and often the difficulty of unavailability of child care, you rely on a whole heap of people in your extended families to look after your kids, take them to school, take them to sport and take them to swimming lessons. You have suddenly been offered an extra three hours at Coles: ‘Can you look after the kids for me?’

To exclude those people from this parenting plan is stupid. We need to include them. That is what is great about this legislation: ‘in the best interests of the children’ encompasses a huge range of people who were once excluded. As we wandered around Australia we would hear evidence of one of the grandparents making up absolutely outrageous claims, often of violence and sexual abuse, just to make sure their child had custody of the children. In many cases these were false. As I said, AVOs were like sausages. They came out in droves. This was fostered by the legal profession who could make a quick quid out of it—and shame on them. I am glad that we have put them at the end of the line.

I am disappointed, as most of the members of committee are, that we could not get the tribunal up. Perhaps in later legislation, once this has been bedded down and worked through for a couple of years, we might have the foresight and imagination to get the tribunal. The 10 of us, who came from wide-ranging fields of life, realised that a tribunal will work. It is something totally different, and there are some constitutional hassles and hang-ups, as in 1975 when we had the revolution and went from fault to no fault in divorce. I must admit I was one in 1974 that had to stand up in court, plead guilty and be publicly humiliated and shamed because I was ‘at fault’ in a divorce. We do not have that now, and I am glad we do not. But now, 30 years later, we are rectifying a problem.

The real hassle with this legislation is that from now on divorces are going to be part of this process. What are we going to do with all the cases, the backlog, the tens of thousands of families queueing up to be part of this new process? As I said, close to a million children, for a variety of reasons, are being denied equal access to the other parent and there are huge consequences of that. As I said at the outset, this is a bit like the RU486 debate: people are speaking from the heart. I reiterate that we on this side do not have all the wisdom and those on the other side do not have all the wisdom. For goodness sake, let us get together on this issue because it affects each and every one of us. As I said, many in this place are trying to rebuild their lives because they have gone through a divorce and the trauma of having to not see their kids. Daily in our electorate offices we are picking up the pieces, advising people, and we must get it right.

So let us not play politics with this: one Attorney-General versus one shadow Attorney-General; people on one side and people on the other. Let us focus on the best interests of one million young Australian people who are currently being impacted by this very complex issue and of goodness knows how many other tens or hundreds of thousands in the future. We have a responsibility in this place. We are a select 150 people. We are expected to do what is right, honourable and just. If we focus on ‘in the best interests of the children’—not our best political interests or point scoring—we will get it right.

Dave Tollner (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If there is an aspect of this job that causes me unease, and probably causes every member of this place unease, it is having to be involved with the consequences of family breakdown. It is a dreadful thing to be sitting in your office seeing a large, tattooed Territorian crying his eyes out because he has not seen his kids for 10 years. It is a dreadful thing to have to sit in your electoral office and watch a woman with three children crying her eyes out because she has not received any child support in a very long time and does not know where the next meal is coming from for the children.

When I first got into this job, I was asked by the Child Support Agency in Darwin to open one of their seminars. At the time, being very young and naive, I thought this was a good opportunity and I put a bit of time into making a nice flowery and up-beat speech about the wonderful things that the Child Support Agency were doing and whatnot. Everything seemed to go all right when I opened the meeting but, within a very short period of time, the situation broke down and people were screaming at one another across the room, and even a chair was thrown. I thought: ‘My goodness! What the hell have I got myself into here?’ It was quite an alarming experience. I think everyone would agree that this is an awfully difficult area for governments to bring themselves to be involved in and put themselves in the middle of family disputes and relationship breakdown. I am glad to see that a big effort has been made over recent years to sort out some of the problems in the system.

The Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005 has been described by the Attorney-General as representing the most significant changes to the Family Law Act since its inception 30 years ago. It is designed, along with the family relationship centres, to avoid litigation as the means of arriving at arrangements for the parenting of children after separation. The bill also complements the foreshadowed changes to the Child Support Agency that were announced just the other day by the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.

Considerable effort has been made to ensure that the bill, which is aimed at bringing about a cultural shift in shared parenting after separation, does protect the best interests of the child and that it does protect children and parents from violence and abuse. The Labor Party has announced proposed amendments to the bill that it hopes will be accepted to address concerns relating to family violence. I think Labor should support the bill, particularly since it aims to encourage both parents to take more responsibility for their children after a relationship breakdown. The bill proposes alternatives to the legal system, prioritises children following family breakdown and improves the legal process where children are involved.

The Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005 makes a wide range of amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 and implements a number of recommendations in the 2003 report Every picture tells a story. I congratulate the committee on their hard work and dedication to the task of writing the report. As I said, this is a difficult area for all of us to work in. I can only imagine how difficult it must have been for members of the committee to travel around Australia and hear those stories everywhere. I listened with great interest to the member for Franklin about his experiences on that committee. I congratulate the member for Riverina on her leadership as Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs that put the report together. It is a wonderful report, and obviously it is unanimously endorsed.

The changes in this legislation will bring about a cultural shift in how family separation is managed—away from litigation and towards cooperative parenting. To set the scene, I refer to the Prime Minister’s statement on 23 June 2003. He said:

I have expressed before, and I will say it again, that one of the regrettable features of society at the present time is that far too many young boys are growing up without proper role models. They are not infrequently in the overwhelming care and custody of their mothers, which is understandable. If they do not have older brothers or uncles they closely relate to and with an overwhelming number of teachers being female in primary schools in particular many young Australian boys are at the age of 15 or 16 before they have a male role model with whom they can identify.

I do not imagine that any one legislative change or pronouncement can alter that, but I think as a national parliament because this is a national responsibility there are things we can do about it ... I will be asking the committee to investigate what other factors should be taken into account in deciding the respective time each parent should spend with their children post separation, in particular whether there should be a presumption that children will spend equal time with each parent, and if so in what circumstances such a presumption could be rebutted.

I am a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs that was asked to inquire into the exposure draft bill and to consider whether it implemented the measures set out in the government’s response to the report Every picture tells a story, which I just mentioned—namely, to encourage and assist parents in reaching agreement on parenting arrangements; to promote the benefit of the child by both parents having a meaningful role in their lives; to recognise the need to protect children from family violence and abuse; and to ensure that the court process is easier to navigate and less traumatic for the parties, particularly the children. The bill implements most of the recommendations that were made by the House of Representatives Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee inquiry.

I would now like to refer extensively to a paper written by Michael Green QC, who was admitted to the New South Wales Bar Association in 1975 and is the President of the Shared Parenting Council of Australia. He says:

On the face of it, such sensible proposals you’d expect would be accepted unanimously.

Michael Green suggests that the average citizen might even be compelled to congratulate a government on such family-friendly initiatives. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. One objection is that compulsory mediation may force separated parents, especially women, to negotiate with abusive former partners and to agree to parenting relationships that are not safe for them or their children. This is not true and it has never been true. No mediator or mediation agency would conduct a mediation session where family relationships are affected by violence or abuse. In such instances, mediation is always seen to be very inappropriate. The new family law provisions specifically exclude mediation in such cases. Nor do mediators permit parties to agree to unsafe parenting arrangements. While entry into mediation may be required, remaining in the mediation session is voluntary. Furthermore, the parties have access to legal advice, either during the mediation or before signing any mediated agreement.

The opposition to reform from lawyers can only be motivated by professional and financial insecurity. Over 50 per cent of couples currently sort out their own post-divorce arrangements with little or no recourse to the law. With increasing education and the realisation that such processes can be managed without paying the $300 to $500 an hour that a lawyer asks, this opposition is set to continue. In 10 years time, will there be much work left for the normal Family Court lawyer? If this legislative reform and community education is properly supported—

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just stop the member for Solomon for a moment and call the attention of the minister who is on duty at the moment to the fact that it is necessary that we have both a minister and a shadow minister at the table at all times.

Peter McGauran (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it’s not. What standing order?

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A minister must be in the chamber and within the chamber confines at all times. I understand that you are waiting for someone to take your place.

Peter McGauran (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What standing order is it that says I have to be at the table?

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is just the practice of the House, as I understand it from the Clerk. This matter arose the other day and it was drawn to the attention of one of the ministers.

Peter McGauran (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But that’s a separate matter to me being at the table.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, to being at the table, but it is also about being within the confines of the House and moving to the back part of it. Beyond the bar is outside the chamber, according to the Clerk’s information.

Peter McGauran (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is it? In that case, Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise for pursuing the issue. Thank you for that clarification. I have learnt something more about the conventions and practices of the House.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I have, Minister.

Dave Tollner (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will have to dwell on this. I did not realise that my speech was that boring that the minister would decide to leave at this particular time!

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not think that was necessarily the intent. I am listening with interest, Member for Solomon.

Dave Tollner (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will continue. In 10 years time, will there be much work left for the normal Family Court lawyer? If this legislative reform and community education that goes with it is properly supported, I would hope that the services of several Family Court judges and lawyers may no longer be required. Mr Green QC suggests, and I tend to agree with him, that feminist groups act on a similar anxiety for self-preservation of their feminist myth. Their support for the present system reveals a concern about power and money: if mothers share the parenting of children, it follows inevitably that they will have to share control of the family and of the resources that come with it.

The need revealed by women’s groups for funding and resources to support abused women and children is well established and well accepted. Not so, however, is the radical position that this is the lot of most women and children, particularly in the aftermath of separation and divorce. Radical feminism has done a disservice to women. It has sought to portray them as poor, suffering creatures that need protection from men and from paternalistic institutions, that are unable to speak comfortably for themselves and to make their own choices and that are easily led into negotiations where their will and interests are easily overruled. Such thinking is a grave insult to the majority of women. Ask any experienced mediator who carries the power in most mediations, and almost inevitably they will reply that it is the mother with the children.

I share Mr Green’s opinion that this government is to be congratulated on having the courage and energy to effect a new system of family law and practice based on reliable research and the aspirations of correct-thinking men and women. If enacted and funded and supported by community education, I hope this legislation will bring enormous benefits to mothers, fathers and, most importantly, children. I would again like to congratulate all of the parliamentarians who have been involved, both on this side of the House and the other, on the way that they have conducted themselves and on the genuine desire for all members to see a better system put in place. I would hope that everybody here would support this bill.

Peter Andren (Calare, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker Hatton, just noting that little incident with Minister McGauran at the table a moment ago, it is interesting to note that the Independents over the years have become very familiar with the requirements of this place. Indeed, a well-loved former Independent member of this House, Ted Mack, used to stand in that area behind the bar—and the bar is at the back of the House, as we can see. ‘Behind the bar’ is not an oft-used term, especially where politicians are concerned, so perhaps that is why it has not been used so often over the years. In fact, that is an area where Ted Mack, and no doubt others over the years, have stood when they have chosen to abstain from a vote. It is an interesting little exercise that I think we can all learn from. It shows that we can all learn in this place every day.

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think we are normally considered to be beyond the pale!

Peter Andren (Calare, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Somewhat beyond the pale, and let us understand where we really are when we are behind the bar. There is no doubt family law and child support matters are probably the most draining and emotional issues to confront MPs. I well remember being shocked by the number and intensity of representations made to me when I first became member for Calare 10 years ago today. Thankfully, there have been some significant reforms with respect to child support matters, at least in the way complaints are handled by Centrelink, rather than the totally cold processes of the Taxation Office.

While I agree there still needs to be significant reforms in the child support domain, I am concerned at observations today from a former Chief Justice of the Family Court, Alistair Nicholson, who described the changes announced this week as ‘retrograde’. I agree that the reduction by 24 per cent in child support for an extra night spent with the non-resident parents seems very excessive, but I do believe there needs to be an adjustment of child support payments. The formula in the suggested changes includes differentiating between the below-12 years and over-12-years costs of raising a child, and that would seem to be a pretty sensible beginning.

Today we are dealing with the other aspect of family breakdown—that is, family law reform. The intent of the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005 is very important. It is an attempt to help parents agree on the future of their children and to lessen the possibility of angst and frustration—indeed, violence—overwhelming the recognition of what are the very best interests of the child. While it is reassuring that 95 per cent of family law matters are resolved without court orders, many people would benefit from the guidance of professional counsellors to deal with interpersonal relationship issues or from dispute resolution, arbitration or reconciliation processes to try to work out a parenting plan that can be agreed upon.

Most of these services would presumably be provided by one of the 65 new family relationship centres. However, the nearest planned centre to the central west is Penrith, and I am concerned for those potential clients in my own electorate—and elsewhere in country New South Wales and elsewhere in Australia—who have neither the means nor the time to travel to, in this case, Western Sydney. Outreach services for rural areas would seem to be an absolute priority if these centres are to work. I note the CEO of the Family Court and delegated staff also have functions as family consultants, counsellors or dispute resolution practitioners, but I am also aware how stretched the court resources already are without these added duties.

Informing people about the new services available to them will, hopefully, circumvent the need for Family Court procedures from the outset for a number of people, should they wish to use these services before initiating divorce proceedings. Unfortunately, it may take the court to order parents to attend a dispute resolution service, counselling or any other of the services available. The court may specify the particular issue that must be addressed by these services and may make an order that the parties encourage others affected—such as grandparents or new partners—to participate in these services, with the intent that a parenting plan is negotiated and nutted out between all parties.

That is a wonderful objective but, given the practicalities of that and the sorts of divisions and angst I see in that five per cent of people—and no doubt they go to Deputy Speaker Hatton’s electorate office as well—it suggests that it will be a difficult path. But if it does happen, they can choose to come back to court to formalise that agreement so it can be enforced by the court. If there is still no agreement then the court must make orders contained in a parenting order. These parenting orders may include dispute resolution processes, living arrangements, responsibilities and contact with the parent and other relatives. That is certainly a welcome addition. In short, the orders may include any aspect of the care, welfare or development of the child. This order is subject to any subsequent parenting plan agreed to by the parents.

The court proceedings, we are told, must be child friendly, less traumatic and easy to navigate, and the assignment by the court of a case manager or a family consultant or a family dispute practitioner, as well as an independent lawyer to represent the child’s best interests, will be of great help to all those involved. So far so good. But, as is already well recognised, retribution and the parents’ own intractable self-interests can render any sort of agreement impossible. Consequently, the court is exempted from ordering counselling or dispute resolution from the outset if the court is satisfied on reasonable grounds that there has been or there is a risk of child abuse or family violence or entrenched conflict.

The reality of violence and fear or of entrenched conflict or child abuse all too often is a pivotal point in family break-ups. The bill recognises this by rightly including the need ‘to protect the child from physical or psychological harm, or from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence’. This is a primary consideration that determines the best interests of the child at every step of the process, although I, too, would be more comfortable at seeing it placed above considerations of the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents in the bill itself, as suggested by the opposition’s amendment. Given the overwhelming concern this issue generates, it would be helpful to emphasise the safety and wellbeing of the child as paramount for those affected parties reading the legislation itself.

This brings me to another issue of domestic violence or intimidation. As already expressed, there is a very real concern about the reporting by victims of domestic violence. The penalising of false allegations made by an applicant is appropriate. But when this is applied to the allegations of abuse or violence, we run a very serious risk that the victims of abuse—who are already in a position of loss of power and intimidation—may not disclose things because of what they perceive to be, and what realistically is, a terrible risk of not convincing the court that abuse has occurred, thus also suffering the consequences of penalties that may include fines, a bond or reduced rights within the resulting parenting order.

To counter this possibility, I would support amendments to allow a subjective definition of family violence by removing reference to what might be ‘reasonably recognised as a threat’ and adding ‘conduct witnessed by a child’ where a person intentionally causes physical or psychological harm to a member of the child’s family. Any reasonable person would agree that this is an appropriate amendment. I agree that any changes to the definition of family violence should be put on hold until we can consider the results of the recently announced review into violence in families and family law. I am happy to learn that this government has accepted the need to invalidate any parenting plans that are obtained under coercion or duress.

The aim of the legislation to promote the wellbeing of the child through shared parenting and meaningful roles by both parents is inarguably right. Language is a powerful tool that shapes and affects expectations and consequent actions, as will this bill and the words contained in it. Why, then, is the misleading term ‘equal’ used in relation to parental responsibility instead of the term that actually means what it says, ‘shared responsibility’? These words are in the title of the bill. This is an irresponsible use of language given the very serious context of this bill and its intent to guide people into approaching family break-up in a more cooperative way, without using the child as a weapon for retribution or control. The intent is given in the bill’s title—the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill. This needs to be consistent throughout the bill.

I am concerned, therefore, that the court is required to consider the making of an order for the child to spend equal time with each of the parents as a starting point for contact. This appears to directly contradict the explicit terms of reference for the inquiry that examined this bill:

The Committee should not re-open discussions on policy issues such as the rejection of the proposal of 50/50 custody in favour of the approach of sharing of parental responsibility.

Regardless of that, considering that equal time should be both in the interests of the child and reasonably practical, it is highly unlikely that such an order would be made. Certainly, international research has shown that time split equally is not in the best interests of the child, and I assume those of us with children would understand the potential effect this could have on a child.

I again refer to the power of language in shaping expectations and intentions and wonder why this is seen as the starting point when a more appropriate term is used in the bill—‘consideration of substantial and significant time’. I take the point made by the previous speaker, who spoke of the distance that can develop between children and their non-resident parent, which is most often the father. I am aware of concerns about the lack of input by the father in some or perhaps many circumstances, but I really think it is unrealistic to work on a mathematical formula in this process. Time spent with the non-custodial parent does need to be substantial and significant, but it needs to be flexible enough to always maximise the best interests of the child.

Any such order must be in the best interests of the child and, sensibly, the court must consider the distance between parents’ homes, the capacity of parents to meet this arrangement, and importantly, their ability to communicate with each other to resolve consequent difficulties or other relevant matters. I also welcome the consideration of the child’s extended family being allowed the opportunity to spend important time with their grandchild, cousin or what have you. Inclusion in a wider family can be an important reassurance for children, especially those who have lost continuing contact with the other parent.

The presumption of equal parental responsibility confirms the right of both parents to make decisions jointly about ‘major long-term issues’ around a child’s education, relocation of the child’s home, religious and cultural upbringing, health and name. It does not include the right of a partner to have input into decisions about the other partner entering a new relationship. The opposition’s amendment proposes to elevate this from a note into the body of the legislation, which emphasises this point. The word ‘responsibility’ surely underlines exactly what the best interests of the child are. However, responsibility can easily be confused with a right, and this, coupled with the presumption created by the word ‘equal’, could again provide a weapon for a manipulative partner to control and intimidate the other partner. I hope the other provisions within the bill will be sufficient to guard against this.

While the emphasis in the bill is to encourage cooperation between parties, it is realistic to ensure a compliance regime is in place to deal with repeated or serious breaches of parenting orders. The courts may already award compensation for reasonable expenses or appropriate legal costs to be paid to the other party. This bill will allow the court to also vary the parenting order as it sees fit, which may be a necessary revision in order to deal with the actual breach. For more serious contraventions, such as repeated harassment or removal of the child to another place against orders of the court, the court can still impose bonds and community service.

There is always the possibility that a breach in orders may occur for very valid reasons, so I am reassured that ‘the court must have regard to any kinship obligations, and child rearing practices, of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture’ in relation to parental responsibility. I hope this is extended to a similar cultural sensitivity in all other aspects of the new regime. I also support any amendments that take into account whether contravention is informed by a genuine belief that it was necessary for the health or safety of the person or their child. This is an important and realistic check to the compliance regime.

These reforms have bipartisan support, and I hope the proposed amendments will be considered and, indeed, accepted in good faith, for none of us would want to play politics with such matters. I remain concerned about the logjam in the court process. Only the other day a constituent detailed to me his absolute frustration at being unable to secure a court hearing until July or August this year—3½ years after interim orders were first put in place. He is concerned for the welfare of his children and wants his day in court to explain why those orders need adjusting. There is also deep frustration at the lack of legal aid and the huge expense involved in hiring lawyers for protracted legal proceedings.

There should be a shared parental responsibility but, as with the political mantra of the past decade of mutual responsibility, there is a collective responsibility for all of us to ensure we examine those policies or lack of policies that contribute to family breakdown. I mention the increasingly casualised and, in some places, fearful of job security workplaces and the lack and unaffordability of child care as two contributing factors.

Ten years on I want to make a note of thanks to Helen Bergen in my staff for the work she has put into this very complex legislation and my contribution to it and to all of my staff, Tim Mahony, Dianne Abbott, Eileen Webb, Brian Hustwayte and all those other staff, supporters and constituents of Calare over those 10 years. I commend this legislation to the House.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Listening to my colleague the honourable member for Calare thanking all of those people, who are undoubtedly worthy of thanks, one could image that he was giving his valedictory speech in this place. I do not know whether he has some news for us but, in any event, those people he thanked would undoubtedly be appreciative of the thanks that he expressed.

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the member for Fisher is being unnecessarily provocative.

Peter Andren (Calare, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I put on the record my thanks for the decade as has been done in many circumstances around this place in the last 24 hours. In no way is it a valedictory.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would appreciate that, as would most members of the House.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We do not really want any unnecessary by-elections! There is no more difficult area of the law than family law because it involves not just legalistic concepts but also families, it involves breakdowns in relationships and it also involves ongoing relationships, particularly the ongoing relationship that separating parents have with their children.

It does not matter from which political perspective we approach this issue. All of us believe that it is important that separating parents ought to, as much as possible, have an ongoing relationship with their children. The children are, of course, Australia’s future and parents who are able to cooperate, even though their own personal relationship has broken down, are clearly performing a service not just for the country but, in particular, for their children. The bringing up of children is unfinished business and even though a relationship may have terminated between two adults, as much as possible, they ought to cooperate in bringing the children up to be responsible citizens.

Thus the framework of the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005 seeks to, as much as possible, provide an environment where separating couples are encouraged to continue to work together to bring up their children. The honourable member for Calare in his contribution seemed to be critical of the committee which I chaired, the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, suggesting that in some way we had breached the terms of reference given to us by the Attorney-General to look into the exposure draft of the bill which is now before the House in its current form.

The committee, in fact, very closely observed the terms of reference and we suggested that the court ought to look, as a starting point, at equal time. We were not suggesting that it was a rebuttable presumption; all we were saying was that we were concerned that so often the words ‘substantial’ or ‘significant’, which were the words used by the member for Calare, could, in the minds of courts, be a very small portion of time. We wanted to create the reality and to point out to the courts that there was an expectation that they would, as a starting point, consider equal time. This does not mean that they are compelled to award equal time and in very many circumstances equal time would not be appropriate. But it is important that the courts take that matter into consideration. If we are able to bring about an environment where loving parents—even though they are not able to be together and even though their own relationship has collapsed—are able to spend more time with their children then the children will be very much better off.

When the committee looked at the exposure draft I was very pleased at the bipartisan manner in which members of the committee worked together. The report was not unanimous. There was one dissenter and that was the honourable member for Gellibrand. The other members of the Labor Party joined the majority and supported the recommendations. There was an expression of concern by Labor members in relation to some aspects of family relationship centres but the core elements of the report and the bill were supported by all members. In fact, even the member for Gellibrand supported most of the recommendations of the committee. I think she pointed that out to the House in her contribution.

This bill, as has already been mentioned, perhaps makes the most major changes to family law since the Family Law Act came in in 1975. The Family Law Act 1975 brought in no-fault divorce and brought in a whole new set of concepts. It took quite some time, I am told, for the legal profession and the community generally to adjust. The examination of the exposure draft of the bill through mid-2005 was perhaps one of the most emotional investigations conducted by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for some time. We received a huge number of submissions and most of them—in fact, all of them really—were speaking from the heart. We had fathers who felt that they had received a rough deal through the courts; we had mothers who were concerned about domestic violence. The committee endeavoured to bring down a balanced report. I have to say that we were particularly pleased when the government overwhelmingly accepted the recommendations of the standing committee.

The government and the committee are both desperately aware of the need to limit the harm done to children during separation. The member for Calare and other honourable members have referred to the interests of the children being paramount and that is the basic concept of the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005. Whatever is actually included in the bill is, quite naturally, subject to the fact that the interests of the children must be paramount. I do not think any reasonable person could deny that the interests of children should be paramount, but we were endeavouring to encourage the courts to perhaps take a fairer approach to the interests of children and parents. I repeat that we believe that it really is important that parents are able to have a parenting plan and to cooperate on unfinished business—that, of course, is the upbringing of the children of a marriage or relationship.

The bill aims as much as possible to move separation out of the courts and to instead encourage mediation and discussion to find solutions. This is less costly than the court system and aims to reduce the instances of additional financial pressures on what is already a difficult and very high stress situation.

The honourable member for Calare pointed out—I think, quite fairly—that there were untoward delays in the Family Court. I believe under the new Chief Justice of the Family Court those delays are probably fewer than they were. Certainly, the Chief Justice is well aware of the not entirely satisfactory record of timeliness of the Family Court and no doubt she is addressing that matter. I recall with some concern how Family Court judges were sent to Timor at one stage to help them with their family law situation. Timor has lots of problems, but I would not have thought that it should have been a top priority for the Family Court of Australia to send judges into the jurisdiction of that newly-free country. We have also heard of instances where judges have not given a judgment and couples have suffered as a result of that lack of timeliness.

The bill aims to offer some protection to those who are most vulnerable in times of family break-up—they, of course, are the children. If we are able to reduce the psychological damage that often accompanies a break-up, then we are contributing to the development of well-balanced adult members of our society. The draft bill that was examined last year aimed to support and promote shared parenting and to encourage people to reach agreement about the parenting of children after separation. That is the core value at the heart of the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005. It also sought to continue to encourage the involvement of both parents. Mention has been made by other honourable members of violence, and the bill also recognises the need to protect children from family violence and abuse and aims to ensure that the court process is less traumatic.

As I said earlier, the committee received a large number of submissions, even after the closing date. We tried to take into account as many as we could. It is important to recognise that this is an outstanding bill, and I commend the Attorney-General, who has just come into the chamber, for the way in which he has brought so many of the recommendations of the committee into the bill we are currently considering.

The family unit remains the most important building block of society; it is the foundation on which a society is built. A shaky foundation of crumbling families equates to an equally shaky society. There are numerous anecdotes that indicate that if parents are able to work together after separation then the trauma of a separation does not impact as grievously on children. The provisions of the bill are supported by the introduction of 65 family relationships centres. I thank the member for Gellibrand for her support of the government’s initiative on these family relationships centres. I think they are geographically well scattered. I hope that there will be sufficient access to them for people around the country. No doubt these family relationships centres will assist many couples who have separated. The family relationships centres are included in a $400 million investment by the Australian government over a four-year period that is directed at improving the stability of families and giving support and advice to those couples who believe they have exhausted all options and must separate.

I understand that there has been some arrangement with the whips that one ought to limit one’s contribution in this debate to 10 minutes. I see that I am just about out of time. I mentioned earlier that the Attorney-General accepted most of the recommendations of the committee. In fact, I gather he accepted some 50 of the 59 recommendations. This bill aims to encourage separating parents to sit down and rationally discuss and plan the future care of their children. I think that the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill is a very important step forward. As a member of this parliament, I feel an enormous sense of satisfaction that this bill, when enacted, will vastly improve the situation of separating families, will vastly improve outcomes for children of separated families and will make a very positive contribution to the welfare and wellbeing of Australian society. I commend the bill to the House.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all of the honourable members for their contributions to this debate on the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005. The issues are of course of great concern. I am very aware of these matters. One of my early tasks as a member of this House was to chair a joint select committee reviewing the Family Law Act. Maybe one day—I hope I will not be blamed too much for it—I will be seen as the architect of the Child Support Scheme. Many recommendations that came from that review were accepted. We reviewed the work of the Family Law Council and other advisory bodies and came to a considered view. The government then sent our work off to be reviewed by the Family Law Council. We found in the end that we had the lowest common denominator result—whatever was acceptable to both. It had a very significant impact on me. I hope the shadow Attorney-General will observe this. I came to the view that when members of parliament focus on a very important area of policy, put the work in and come to considered conclusions the government ought to take them seriously. That is the view I came to as a result of my own experience working in the parliamentary committee system.

The development of this bill has been the product of many members on both sides of the House. The driving force behind those reforms comes, to a significant extent, from the work done by the former House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, whose chair was my colleague Kay Hull, the member for Riverina. I thank her very much for her contribution. She has lost none of her passion for the reforms she helped to create and I saw that in the speech she made. I also acknowledge the work of other members, including the member for Fowler, the member for Mitchell, the member for Makin, the member for Dickson, the member for Cowan, the member for Throsby, the member for Aston, the member for Chifley, the member for Franklin—I acknowledge you, Mr Deputy Speaker Quick—and the member for Blair. This bill is very much the genesis of the work done in the report Every picture tells a story.

The bill was also improved by the work of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, under the chairmanship of the member for Fisher. I acknowledge the work of members of that committee, including the member for Lowe, the member for Riverina, the member for Denison, the member for Banks, the member for Indi, the member for Gellibrand, the member for Barker, the member for Solomon, the member for Wentworth, the member for Mitchell and the member for Chifley. Both of these committees have produced largely bipartisan reports. That is very valuable when it can occur. It will not always occur, but it is valuable when it does occur.

This is an area of public policy of enormous interest and that is why we have had so many speakers on the bill in this House and in the Main Committee. I thank the government members of the family relationship centres task force for their work, including the member for Wakefield, the member for Deakin, the member for Moncrieff, the member for Bass, the member for Greenway, the member for Riverina, the member for Stirling and the member for Lindsay. I am very appreciative of the enormous work that has been undertaken.

While there has been some complaint from the opposition that the task force should have been bipartisan, I point out that at a time when the opposition has set up a bipartisan committee to oversee the implementation of reforms that involve other members—I would like to be able to count those; I do not think I would find many—there is a significant degree of interest in the implementation of this initiative, particularly in relation to family relationship centres. It was not quite the model suggested by the committee, but it picks up many of its features. The implementation is something in which government members expressed a real interest, and I thought they should be allowed to help me in the implementation task.

In relation to all of this work there have been thousands of submissions and hundreds of people have given oral evidence. I would like to thank the community for taking the time and effort to be involved in this process. I hope this will be seen as important and fundamental reform—a shift in the way people see family law issues—and I hope it will be seen to have been driven by a genuine desire to see reform in the community.

I should emphasise that this bill is part of the reform agenda. As the member for Wakefield said in this debate, we have a holistic approach to reform based upon the new family relationship centres and the expansion of other services. These reforms to the Family Law Act and the major changes to child support announced yesterday are part of that holistic approach. The child support changes, like this bill, support shared parenting. They recognise the contribution that both parents make to the care of children. There are also reforms to court processes, including a combined registry for the Family Court and the Magistrates Court.

It is not my intention to revisit every aspect of these changes. However, I think a number of the points which have been raised in this debate warrant a response. First, let me turn to the issue of family violence. The member for Gellibrand stated her opposition to the government’s reform of the definition of ‘family violence’ to introduce an element of reasonableness to the apprehension of fear or violence. She cited the fact that the government has commissioned new research on family violence as part of its Family Law Violence Strategy and as evidence that the government was acting prematurely.

The government’s intention is for this strategy to lead to an improved set of processes which will complement, not revisit or replace, the new laws. I assert very positively that the terms of the changes we are making demand that we implement them now and not wait for a further inquiry before amendments. These changes are, in the words of the member for Riverina, the product of ‘a report, a response to the report, an inquiry into the response and a response to the inquiry on the response to the report’. As noted by the colleague of the shadow Attorney-General the member for Throsby, these reforms are ‘not before time’.

The member for Gellibrand also flagged Labor’s concern that the incidence of using costs within the family law jurisdiction risks turning family law into a costs jurisdiction. I suspect that many parties before our courts at the moment would be very surprised to learn that it is not a costly jurisdiction. The question is: who should pay those costs? In cases where proceedings are the result of a party’s disregard of court orders or of false allegations of violence, the government thinks it only just that costs orders should be able to be made where appropriate against the party responsible.

We agree with the member for Gellibrand that family relationship centres are critical to the success of our reforms. The government is providing the largest ever investment in the family law system with more than $397 million over four years to give parents the support they need to do the best for their children. The quality of services provided by the centres is of utmost importance. The centres will be required to deliver high-quality, timely, safe and ethical services. Contrary to some of the statements by those opposite, the success of the centres will not be judged simply on how many clients are ‘churned’ through the system. The qualitative assessment of services will be part of the assessment process, but that does not mean you should not also make quantitative judgments. The member for Gellibrand should actually read the key performance indicators before criticising them. Objective 3 requires quality services and the key performance indicators refer to qualitative outcomes.

Some members opposite have raised concerns that the accreditation rules for staff of the centres and the complaints processes are not yet in place. The government has funded the Community Services and Health Industry Skills Council to develop a set of competency based accreditation standards that will apply to family counsellors and family dispute resolution practitioners. The council should be allowed to do that work. Its expertise should be relied upon. When you have asked such an independent body and such a respected body to do that work, it would be unreasonable and inappropriate to suggest at this stage—some months off—that they be on the public record. The skills council aims to complete this project by mid-2006, around 12 months before the commencement of the requirement for people with new parenting disputes to attend compulsory dispute resolution from July 2007 and two years before all people with parenting disputes will be required to attend compulsory dispute resolution from July 2008. With such a comprehensive process in place, the government rejects any suggestion that some sort of ad hoc accreditation rules should be introduced in haste. In the meantime, the current requirements for qualifications, training and experience for mediators set out in the Family Law Regulations of course continue to apply.

The member for Gellibrand referred to the need for a complaints process for family relationship centres. Family relationship centres will be required to have an internal complaints procedure in place, which must be prominently displayed in each of the centres. Some members opposite raised concerns that the location of family relationship centres was chosen on the basis of political benefit. As I have said before, if you want to look at how Labor did this sort of work, look at how migrant resource centres were placed.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Roxon interjecting

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are not closing migrant resource centres, as I understand it. The location of these centres was determined by me on the basis of advice provided by my department. That included information about the numbers of families and separating families, information identifying transport routes and other objective data which would help in the making of those decisions. The government members family relationship centres task force was not consulted. It played no role in those matters. I made the decisions. People who know me know that when I am given the opportunity to make decisions I will do so on a proper basis, I will take the decisions myself and I will be accountable for those decisions. This was not a matter in which members were in a position of conflict in influencing decisions when their electorates may have been among the areas considered.

The criticism of the opposition of the tender process for family relationship centres is equally unfounded. The tender process for the selection of organisations to run the family relationship centres is open and transparent and has been conducted in accordance with best practice. While the government task force did comment on the draft selection documents before the process began, it is not involved in any way in the actual selection process—and that has been made very clear—or in deciding which organisations should be selected to run those centres. Those decisions will be taken by officers of my department in developing the recommendations which I will ultimately approve.

I should also deal with the issue that was raised by the honourable member for Gellibrand concerning the Hillsong Church. Hillsong were made an offer under the Community Crime Prevention Program, run by my colleague the Minister for Justice and Customs, but that offer was later withdrawn. There was no contract with them and no moneys were ever paid.

Let me turn to the assertions by some members opposite that the government is in danger of creating ‘false expectations’ with its family law reforms. Far from trying to create false expectations about family law reforms, the government has provided $5.7 million over two years to develop and implement a community education campaign to raise awareness of the changes and the reforms to the family law system. The campaign will be based upon market research to ensure that people receive information about the changes in a format that is most appropriate for them.

This bill reflects the government’s desire to change the culture around family breakdown and to ensure that as many children as possible grow up in a safe environment with the love and support of both their parents. We hope that in future many of the stories that we see coming from the family law system will be very different. This bill will implement the most significant reforms to family law in some 30 years, reforms which I hope will deliver a better, fairer, faster system for the benefit of families.

I thank honourable members for their contribution to this debate. I appreciate very much the work of those who on a bipartisan basis committed themselves to examining these reforms and have supported them. I have genuinely taken into account their views and the comment they made that some of the original propositions that I put ought to be more acceptable. I make the point that I do have regard for the bipartisan work of colleagues. I think it is worthy of consideration and I will always give it that. I might also say to the honourable member for Gellibrand that I believe the parliamentary committee system does not just exist in the Senate and that members of the House of Representatives can make very valuable contributions. It may be fine for the Senate to want to second-guess members of the House of Representatives, but I will not necessarily be falling over backwards, unless I am persuaded, to adopt further changes. I thank all those members who have contributed so positively to this debate.

Harry Quick (Franklin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Gellibrand has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.