John Alexander (Bennelong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The breakdown in a relationship too often leads to a phase of adult war. Logic and fairness is overridden by emotional issues. Inevitably, the child becomes the collateral damage—the victim of the conflict. Laws that have correctly been put in place to protect those at risk—in particular, to protect women from violence and to protect children from any number of transgressions—have now empowered parents in conflict to use all too often with the aid of aggressive legal practitioners the laws that should be there to protect those at risk as strategic attack weapons to most often put the father in an impossible position to defend.

It is understandable that when these protective measures were first implemented the initial flow of genuine cases and distressing stories led those working in the Family Court to become predisposed to prejudging any male coming before them. This syndrome of using well-intentioned laws to disadvantage the father in a parental war has taken some time to be realised. The wisdom of Solomon is so easily recalled in such events, when a parent employing such tactics is choosing to cut the child in half and is therefore not the real and caring parent. Rarely does a week go by in which there is not a significant event involving a parent feeling so disempowered to effect their desires to co-parent after the breakdown of a marriage that a breaking point is reached, sometimes with the most unimaginably tragic consequences. One, in absolute desperation, climbed the Sydney Harbour Bridge and brought the city to a standstill. The only triumph was his voice finally being heard.

The unfortunate reality in these dramatic episodes is that they are the tip of the iceberg. These are pleas from those feeling that they have no voice as a result of the system. They are certainly not faultless, but such acts of desperation can only be a reminder of a process that is felt by many to be unfair or, perhaps, even unjust. Our laws and the interpretation of those laws must protect those who are vulnerable. There also should be provisions that severely punish with costs both the professionals and the partners who seek to corrupt the process by inappropriately using such laws for their commercial advantage or to inflict hurt on their former partner by depriving contact with their child. The unintended consequences when the focus is to hurt the former partner is that the children become the collateral damage and a different form of family violence is perpetrated on the children by those who may have the purest of intention. Emotional turmoil destroys their judgment and their first obligation as a parent.

I have some serious concerns with the broadening of the definition of violence to effectively include any act of disagreement or anger in any relationship that involves children. All of us in this place and throughout Australia will know that raising children can sometimes be as challenging as it is rewarding. The pressure that it puts on relationships is evidenced by the ever-increasing rates of divorce and separation. Coupled with this expansion of the definition and a reduction in the court's ability to punish incorrect allegations equals a misuse of laws put in place to protect the vulnerable. Well-intentioned laws are taken advantage of for personal gain. We should certainly be mindful of what is actually happening through the empowerment of those who will act contrary to the best interests of the child to fight their personal wars. Every effort should be made to guard against this from occurring.

Of course, this is by no means occurring on every occasion. The men who do perpetrate violence on defenceless women and children are the most cowardly members of our society. However, it is dangerous to implement a wide-ranging law to treat all men as perpetrators of violence and not recognise that some men would never raise a hand and could themselves be victims of emotional violence. Such a law will not facilitate the desired result for the protection of the vulnerable and fair access to family structures that our society is based upon.

This bill is a step in the right direction, and I commend the coalition amendments to the House.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare and Early Childhood Learning) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and other measures) Bill 2011. This bill amends part VII of the Family Law Act 1975, dealing with children, to enable the courts and the family law system to respond more effectively to parenting cases involving violence or allegations of violence.

Family violence exists and it is a reality. Every practitioner who deals with separating couples needs to have an awareness of this issue. Does violence exist and, if so, how are the already complex circumstances of separation and alternative dispute resolution managed in light of it? In some circumstances where violence is present, mediation is just not an option. Clarity and consistency around the definition of family violence is critically important, not least because the recipients of public funds who work in this area must be able to demonstrate what they do and what they achieve. In the public discourse, violence can be characterised as someone else's fault—something a person is driven to by their partner, outside circumstances, ill health, stress or some other factor. Family violence is unacceptable and there is never an excuse for it. No-one in today's society should have to spell out why. Apart from the threat to safety, the mental and physical pain and anguish, and the sheer psychological damage violence does to the people who are on the receiving end—and in part to those who perpetrate it—front and centre of its negative effect is the message it gives to children, who, while they may not actually have their physical safety threatened, are too often severely affected.

Witnessing violence in an ongoing parental relationship teaches children that it is a valid transaction—one they may need at some stage to employ. It is no secret that violent patterns of behaviour are passed down through generations. Women and men fleeing violent relationships often say to me that the final reason they left a violent partner was the lesson they were unwittingly teaching their children that it is okay to do this and okay to have it done to you.

Society has come a long way since the days when family violence was never admitted to, never spoken of in polite company, and when women—and it was usually women—suffered in silence, simply getting up the next day to face the world as if nothing had happened. I worry that in some of our more rural areas, where help is not readily available, in small towns where everyone knows who you are, this is still happening. This is why the resources that go into Lifeline and telephone counselling are so important.

In my electorate of Farrer we have excellent agencies, people and programs to assist separating couples. I acknowledge the Family Relationship Centre in Wodonga, which looks after a wide area including Albury and surrounds. Family relationship centres were introduced by the Howard government and there are 67 across Australia. Their task is to support a shift away from the courts and into the community as the place to deal with family breakdown.

Since its conception in 2007, the Wodonga Family Relationship Centre has dealt with 1,367 cases—and of those, 635 have been identified has having family violence present. This centre is clearly highly significant, particularly because it enables early screening and assessment of cases and recommends the right kind of intervention, mediation or, sadly, in some cases, no mediation but referral to police or courts. The average time the centre spends with families is three months but for some families it but could be up to eight or nine months. The centre has achieved approximately 286 parenting plans and many families have been happy just to discuss their situation with a neutral person present.

The success of the family relationship centre I believe is its unique model that allows for families to determine their own arrangements. Where family violence is identified the centre is able to offer support and safe and comfortable conversations, and it can tailor its service delivery to respond to the needs of a family.

I also recognise the work of Upper Murray Family Care in Albury and Wodonga, which runs counselling programs and the children's contact service. I support the work of Betty's Place Women's Refuge which provides support, counselling and advocacy to women very much. I note, however, that there is nowhere to go for men who have been subject to family violence.

In Broken Hill I acknowledge the role of Catherine Haven Women's Refuge and the Family Support Service of Broken Hill and District as well as the family support and crisis workers in other organisations across my electorate, such as Centacare and Anglicare.

Intereach, based in Deniliquin, has early intervention as their key focus but unfortunately there are very limited counselling options. There is no specialised family violence counsellor in town. A family violence funded worker comes to visit from Albury-Wodonga, some 2½ hours away. Their role is predominantly that of court support worker. They do offer a family support program and have around 20 families they are assisting. Not all of these are victims of domestic violence. They suspect that the increase in cases being reported is to do with enhanced promotion of services available.

When people require more intensive, professional assistance it can be a very long wait. There are waiting lists of six-plus months at Echuca for an appointment with a psychologist. In regional and particularly remote areas such as the far west, Family Violence Prevention Legal Services find difficulty attracting staff because they are unable to offer legal practitioners the salaries they can earn in the city.

In looking at this particular bill, I do so with a strong view that our system of laws, no less than our system of community support, must respond first and foremost to the needs of the child. The bill proposes an amendment which requires the court, when determining what is in a child's best interests, to give greater weight to the primary consideration that protects the child from harm where there is inconsistency in applying the two primary considerations—the other being the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents. This amendment would appear to be superfluous as the act already gives effect to the principle of paramountcy of the best interests of the child. Are we therefore supposed to conclude that there are serious shortcomings with the existing system that need to be fixed up when there are not?

It is the best interests of the child that has led to the much misunderstood 'presumption of shared parenting', as it is often described, and the associated view that somehow each parent is entitled to 50 per cent care of their child. These concepts were never about parental entitlement; they merely recognised what I believe to be a self evident fact—that it is in the best interests of children to have a productive relationship with both parents. This means spending time with both parents, and that neither parent should stand in the way of that.

The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs report, Every picture tells a story, unanimously stated:

We are convinced that sharing responsibility is the best way to ensure as many children as possible grow up in a caring environment. To share all the important events in a child's life with both mum and dad, even when families are separated, would be an ideal outcome.

Of course, shared parenting is not always possible and family violence may well be a reason. Partners who commit violence deal themselves out of negotiations about shared parenting.

But it has to be said that there are vexatious claims about violence, generally made by women about men for a variety of reasons. We cannot escape this fact, and having spoken to people who work in children's contact services, I know of many examples. This does not for a moment diminish the tragedy of the cases that are real and I understand, too, that some partners may believe there to be a real threat of violence when a reasonable person would not conclude such a thing. I appreciate that different types of behaviour provoke different responses and reactions from those on the receiving end of them but we nevertheless must accept that claims about violence made for strategic rather than genuine reasons are a feature of the family law landscape today. This bill seeks to change the definition of violence and I have concerns about that change. It changes a reasonable person test to a subjective test. The existing test is broad; the proposed test is too broad and may well admit claims that, while appalling behaviour is not in the interests of children, it should nevertheless not be described as violence. I am not convinced of the merits of this amendment and I await the outcome of the Senate committee inquiry.

The bill also seeks to repeal the so-called 'friendly parent provision', which currently requires family courts to consider the willingness of one parent towards facilitating the other parent to have a meaningful relationship with their child. This provision has been criticised by some as discouraging parents' disclosures of family violence and child abuse for fear of being found to be 'unfriendly'. I do not agree that this provision needs to be repealed; its proper application is nothing to fear. Running active interference against the other parent should count against you and, if there is a valid reason for not cooperating, then it will not count against you. The failure of one parent to facilitate a relationship between a child and a separated parent is a factor that courts absolutely should uncover. There can be no reason for a parent's obstructive behaviour to be excluded from consideration.

The bill proposes to repeal the section which provides for mandatory costs orders where a party knowingly makes a false allegation or statement in the proceedings. It should be noted that the test put forward is a tough one: a mandatory costs order cannot arise from evidence that was given recklessly or without belief—in other words, it applies to knowingly false evidence. If a court were prepared to make such a finding, there is no reason why a costs order should not follow. We should not seek to disturb this state of affairs.

I have highlighted key areas where the opposition does not agree with the government on this bill. The Senate committee report is due on 23 June and will no doubt inform further deliberations in the other place. It must be stated that there are substantial areas where we are in substantial agreement with the government. These capture the seriousness of family violence and child abuse, the need to put children's interests first and the need for courts to take prompt and appropriate action in his area.

All members of this place recognise that family law is no place for politics, no place for grandstanding and no place for point scoring. The careful consideration of the matters raised by the Attorney-General, the shadow Attorney-General and members and senators is to be commended. Having said that, it is unfortunate that early intervention relationship services run by the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs have suffered a nine per cent cut in the budget and the family relationship centres have had a four per cent cut.

For those of us who have been through the pain of family breakdown, experienced the sheer no-win nature of it and watched helplessly at the damage done to the people we love, these are never easy issues. I believe governments should step into this arena with reluctance. But step in we must, primarily because this is a time when families stop talking to each other, stop listening to each other and often stop putting the needs of their children first. Family law legislation has to get the balance right, but governments also have a responsibility to make sure there is sufficient funding of programs that help separating couples. This help is invaluable. Too often in my rural and regional electorate I hear of waiting lists for counselling and mediation. When families are in crisis they often just cannot wait. We have a desperate shortage of children's counsellors, a specialised and incredibly important group of psychologists. Children must be able to express their feelings in a safe place in a safe way when their whole world is falling apart. A delay of even a fortnight, which may be acceptable when making appointments with other health professionals, is an unacceptable delay at this time.

I support the amendment to be moved by the member for Stirling and I await the outcome of the Senate inquiry.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In addressing the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011, I have come to understand how the citizens of Troy must have felt when they were greeted with the gift of a giant wooden horse, because this bill is not what it appears. It is a Trojan horse. Just like the giant wooden horse, full of Greek warriors, in Greek legend and like an insidious computer virus, full of malicious code, this Trojan bill is loaded with consequences that will undermine some of the most basic human rights for both parents and children, and particularly fathers.

Family law is a very difficult area to legislate. There is no escaping the fact that every family is different. To create legislation that caters to all circumstances is an unlikely quest. In most circumstances, there are no winners in family law. Family breakdowns are messy. They are hurtful. They are spiteful. They are emotional, irrational and painful. The holy grail of relationship breakdowns, the amicable divorce, is rarer than a kept Labor promise.

It is in this emotionally charged atmosphere that mothers and fathers interact and children are bystanders, often witnessing behaviour by their parents at their very worst. Make no mistake: I do not object to the face-value intentions of some of the amendments in this bill. We cannot question the need to hold a child's safety in the highest regard when it comes to custody arrangements. But we can question why these amendments are being made.

The current act, introduced by the Howard government in 2006, created the 'twin pillars' of parenting provisions. These measures recognised two primary considerations for determining the best interests of the child. The twin pillars were: (a) the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of his or her parents and (b) the need to protect the child from harm or from being exposed to abuse, neglect and/or violence—I repeat: the need to protect the child from harm. Safety concerns for the child are already in the existing legislation. It is one of two primary considerations—considerations that, yes, are given equal weight. But, in addition, the current act specifically states in section 60CG that a court must ensure that a parenting order:

(a) Is consistent with any family violence order; and

(b) Does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence.

Protection is already provided for in the act.

What this amendment proposes to do is to take a George Orwell approach to ranking considerations. When Orwell's animals in his classic novel Animal Farm draft their legislation on the barn wall, they affirm that 'All animals are equal'. The pigs then make an amendment: 'But some animals are more equal than others'. The pigs, of course, had an ulterior motive and I fear that there is one at play here as well. What these amendments are saying is, 'Yes, the two considerations are primary, but one is more primary than the other.' What the bill does in reality is to retain child safety as a primary concern while relegating the child's parental relationships to a minor concern. It sounds innocent enough, I suppose, but the Trojan horse here is a facade of enhancing child safety. The bill is dressed up as an attempt to protect children, which is a pointless exercise, because child safety is fully ensured in the current act. What is inside this Trojan horse, the malicious code that will infect society, is an attempt to undermine equal access for both parents. This change would invite the court to ignore the requirement to consider the second pillar—the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents.

The Family Law Practitioners Association of Queensland is concerned about giving greater weight to the second of the primary considerations. In their submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, they said: 'Such a provision removes the court's licence to assess in each individual case the degree of risk, its probability or, in the case of family violence, its context in terms of frequency, intensity and recency in the determination of the weight to be given to such risk or harm.' This bill would mean that any inference of violence, proven or unproven, would have to be taken into consideration, however vexatious the claims may be. The potential danger of this change is apparent when viewed in conjunction with other changes proposed in this bill.

The broadened definition of 'family violence' would mean that a wide range of everyday activities could potentially be construed as violence. The broader definition includes as violence such things as repeated derogatory taunts. Under the proposed definition, much of what happens right here in the parliament would be construed as violence. Also included as violence is this little nugget: 'preventing the family member from making or keeping connections with his or her family, friends, or culture.' Under this broad definition, a parent could not prevent a young teenager from spending 20 hours a day talking to friends on Facebook, for fear of being accused of family violence. What happens when a parent acts in a way that a reasonable person would describe as good parenting? What happens when a father says to his 13-year-old daughter, 'No, you can't go to Julia's party because there will be alcohol and no adult supervision'? I will tell you what happens. An upset teenage daughter talks to a vindictive mother, who then claims the daughter is a victim of family violence—and it is their right under this definition. Another child loses the right to have a meaningful relationship with her parent. Under this definition, a parent would be too scared to ground a child as punishment for bad behaviour, for fear of 'depriving a family member of his or her liberty.'

The sheer magnitude of this definition presents two problems. The most immediate problem is that living an ordinary life can too easily be construed as family violence. Adding fuel to the fire will be the actions of hurt, emotional, and spiteful former partners in stretching the truth. Tripping over the family dog will suddenly become 'intentionally injuring an animal'. Using a few poorly-chosen words a few times in an argument—which most families have experienced—will constitute family violence as 'repeated derogatory taunts'. This definition would allow everyday actions to be seized, twisted, exaggerated and used as family violence weapons in the court. What this change does is broaden the definition of family violence so much that the word 'violence' loses all real meaning. That would be a tragedy, because it would also water down the perception of family violence.

I believe that violence is violence. Violence is cruel and harmful. It is a serious problem in some families and a serious problem in the wider society. But violence is not 'grounding' a child. It is not protecting your child. Being a good parent is not being a violent parent. There is a simple solution to stop such things being interpreted as family violence. That is the 'reasonable person' test. Such a test demands that for an action to be deemed as violence it must be an action that requires a person 'reasonably to fear' for their personal safety and wellbeing. This is precisely the meaning and interpretation that this legislation strips out of the act. Is this bill more than it appears at face value? Is it another Trojan horse? I say it is most certainly a Trojan horse. On face value, the broadened definition of 'family violence' creates the illusion of providing greater protection against family violence. Yes, that is a lovely wooden horse but let's take a look inside. Maybe not, because inside this Trojan is malicious code that gives one parent an arsenal of weapons to be misused in court to deprive the other parent of their right to be a parent.

Earlier in this debate we heard the Minister for the Status of Women tell this parliament that no-one uses claims of family violence in such a way. I have some very bad news for the minister: it actually does happen. It happens every day; and if she is not aware of it happening then she is gravely out of touch with reality. If the minister does not have any contact with her own constituents, perhaps she could spend a few minutes at her laptop doing some research. Here is the sort of thing that you can find in two minutes: the newspaper headline 'Ugly feud fought on Facebook'. The article tells about a Family Court hearing late last year. At the end it says:

She had already strung the case out by falsely claiming her ex-husband had been sexually assaulting their children after one judgment went against her. Then she falsely claimed the father's new wife had been assaulting them. 'The mother has over the years attempted to manipulate the court system,' Justice Barry said.

That is just one case that can be found with two minutes of Google research, and yet the minister came into this House and said that making false allegations of family violence and using family violence as a weapon in the courts is a myth. Do some homework, Minister. The fact that this minister has told a lie to this parliament—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will withdraw.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will withdraw, but I will say that the minister has told an untruth to this parliament. It is clearly not true to say that it is a myth. It is clearly not true to say—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will return to the bill before him.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am, because the minister has told this House that it is a myth that family violence is misused by people in the Family Court. The fact is that it is not a myth and you can see that from a bit of research. Abuse of the system is why we have organisations like Lone Fathers, Dads on the Air, Fathers Online, Fathers 4 Equality, Men's Rights and so on. If we look closely at these groups, there is a common theme. It is a theme that helps explain why this malicious code is being pushed into the act. These are groups set up by fathers. We can talk all we want about custodial parents and non-custodial parents, but the truth is that most custodial parents are mothers and most non-custodial parents are fathers.

There are no winners in family law. All parents in family law become losers one way or the other, but some who are bigger losers than others. The current act helped to bring some equality to family law. It created the two pillars, one of which recognised the benefits to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents. These amendments are a backward step. They will strip fathers of their right to be fathers. These amendments will allow abuse of the system that will create another generation of stolen children.

I do not know where the government obtains feedback on the practicalities of family law and family law disputes, but I get my feedback from constituents. I talk to real people who are affected by real situations. I have conversations with fathers who are getting the roughest end of the pineapple. They are grieving fathers who have lost children through the courts. They are devastated and frustrated. They are good men who love their children and want to maintain a relationship with their own flesh and blood—something that should be a basic right.

Some of these men are on the edge. They are driven insane by the lack of justice in the system. They are left in the wilderness, robbed of basic rights and family and, with no support from our legal system, these fathers are driven to despair, driven to the brink of insanity. And if the minister wants to continue her research, she might discover what happens when fathers are placed in a hopeless situation where justice is lost through abuse of the system—which she claims is a myth. When fathers are driven to insanity, they do insane things. I can, in no way, condone the actions of men who, in the face of losing everything, choose to take everything. They do take their own lives and, very sadly, sometimes in the insanity that they are engulfed in, they take the lives of their children. I note that this is not purely a male response, given that there are numerous examples, including some recent cases, of non-custodial mothers doing the same thing.

Family violence is a terrible thing, but so are the actions of fathers driven to the brink. These amendments will do nothing to stop family violence—we already have good measures in place—but they will drive more fathers to the brink. If these amendments drive fathers to the brink, we should be asking who is at the wheel. Is the Minister for the Status of Women at the wheel? Is the Labor-Greens government at the wheel?

I suspect that there is a strong feminist ideology driving these amendments. It is feminist ideology that has created this malicious code to rob men of their rights to be fathers. It is feminist ideology that has dressed up this malicious code to rob children of their right to have a father in their lives. It is feminist ideology that has dressed up this malicious code to create the illusion of acting to stop family violence.

I note that included with these changes is one that repeals the 'friendly parent' provisions from the additional considerations for determining a parenting order. The friendly parent provision encourages amicable behaviour among parents. It fosters friendly relationships with all parties. Most importantly, the friendly parent provision assists a court to meet the first pillar of parenting provisions—the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of its parents. This provision has helped more fathers maintain meaningful relationships with their children and, at the same time, it has discouraged parents from abusing the system.

But justice and maintenance of rights for fathers is an affront to this feminist ideology from this government. What a clever way to rob men and rob fathers of their rights! Surely no-one would vote against amendments aimed at protecting children and preventing family violence. But that is not what these amendments are really about. There is already protection in the current at. The fact is that these amendments actually trivialise what is a very serious matter—that being family violence. The broadened definition of 'family violence' waters down the meaning of violence and will, in effect, make family violence more acceptable—precisely the opposite of the purported aim of these amendments. These amendments should be seen for what they are. They are a Trojan horse, full of malicious code designed to deprive fathers of their rights. The best thing we can do to protect the safety of children and to prevent family violence is to leave this act as it is. (Time expired)

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can think of no more significant thing that we can do in this place and, more importantly, what each of us as Australians can do outside of this place—whether we are members of parliament or whatever—than work to keep families together. That is, I would argue, the most significant goal that we could have in our society and in our community. Over centuries, our community has built its stability on having stable families, and we should do whatever we can in this place to strengthen families. Government from time to time may think that it can do things that take away from families, but I know one thing—and Ronald Reagan said it—and that is that government can never replace family. I am sure members of the House would agree with that.

The matters that we are dealing with here with this bill, the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011, are difficult and emotional and cause all sorts of harms. There are never any easy solutions and outcomes but, while we wrestle around these measures in this place, I would hope that all of us here are trying to get a better outcome for families and for children in particular.

My colleague, the father of the House, the member for Berowra, was the architect of the 2006 changes to the Family Law Act, in his capacity as Attorney-General. He knows better than most the challenges it poses and he certainly was not wrong when he observed that this is a very delicate issue. The fact is that the law deals with the sobering realities of broken relationships. It attempts to traverse an emotional minefield where the stakes are high. The issue is fuelled by strong feelings on all sides. There are high levels of conflict and certainly no easy solutions. Seeking objectivity can be very difficult where the bond between a parent and their child is subject to such scrutiny. This is why the coalition is committed to ensuring that, at the heart of every dispute, the focus remains on the safety and wellbeing of the child.

As people attempt to overcome their hurt and confusion and to work through their issues with a partner, a wife or a husband, there is a risk that, in the heat of the moment, a child can become a pawn—a mechanism used to hurt, to punish and to seek revenge. We have seen this played out all too sadly all too recently. This is not always a conscious or deliberately malicious act, but the outcome is the same. Often parents are acting with what they think are the right intentions, but the law must ensure the needs of their child do not become confused or supersede their own.

It is important that children grow up knowing both parents. I believe a child should have the right to both parents—a mother and a father—to as great an extent as is possible and practical. But this must never come at the expense of the child's safety. No-one can claim any perfect solution because there is not one—simple as that. There are no two cases the same, so there is an overriding need for flexibility. To test this law we need to look at worst case scenarios, to contemplate the darkest, ugliest part of the human condition. It is not comfortable. The issues are emotionally fraught and can be confronting. But to safeguard every child in this nation we are required to do just that in order to ensure the right checks and balances are in place to protect children, even when their parents cannot. The Family Law Act was enacted to protect the defenceless at the height of their vulnerability, when society's fabric has been irrevocably torn. Each child has a right to be safe and secure and that is the underlying premise of the act. To suggest any other ulterior motive is simply wrong. There may be room for improvement. The act may not always produce the outcomes we seek, but I am concerned that these amendments may only serve to create more confusion when we ought to be seeking clarity. However, I am open to the discussion and to listening to the points that are raised.

Provided a child is safe, they should be able to grow up knowing both their mother and their father and enjoying a fulfilling relationship with each. The act as it stands upholds this principle. We should seek to encourage negotiation, not litigation, wherever we can. The coalition's approach has been, wherever possible, to get these matters out of the courts. The Howard government funded Family Relationship Centres across the nation and they were in high demand. I pay tribute to those who work in the centre at Caringbah. There was a very clear and deliberate focus on empowering people to work through their issues collaboratively and constructively amongst themselves. A report by the Australian Institute of Family Studies in late 2009 found that overall the clients of post-separation services looked upon those of the relationship centres favourably. Over 70 per cent of clients who had used the family relationship centres and dispute resolution mechanisms said the service was fair. One in two said the service gave them the help they needed. Similarly, the professionals working within these services believe their capacity to assist clients, to help parents work through their issues together, was high. But tellingly they flagged the frustrations over long waiting times, resourcing and recruitment issues.

Obviously not every case can be resolved in this way, but where these issues can be worked through, where a child can continue to grow in their relationship with both parents, surely that is preferable. It begs the question: why then is the government cutting funding to initiatives that have a clear and proven track record? Not only that, as the member for Berowra noted, the government is in fact boosting funding for legal aid in family disputes. To pull funding from initiatives that are making a real difference is very disappointing. In pursuing these amendments the government is in very real danger of driving these problems back through the courts as the preferred option and undoing what progress we have made since 2006.

The proposed legislation seeks to broaden definitions, widen the range of claims that can be made and extend the grounds upon which people can dispute and bicker. The member for Blair raised a valid point when he said:

In fact family violence, as people know, occurs in many ways. That includes not just physical assault but dominating, controlling behaviours; stalking; friendship isolation; familial isolation; emotional manipulation; financial abuse; harassment; and cultural isolation.

We as a society need to be aware of this and ever-vigilant. The member for Blair went on to observe that:

We need to protect children from these types of activities. We need to protect spouses as well, if we can.

On that point, I do not believe there is any disagreement. The Family Law Act has never been about ignoring violence. Domestic violence is appalling. In my own electorate in the Sutherland Shire there were 501 reported incidents of assault relating to domestic violence last year alone in our local government area. That is 501 cases too many. Sadly, it will not be 501 cases that can now be avoided. These things weigh heavily on us all when we think about these matters—well more than one a day. Yes, the law must offer protection, but it should also offer protection from allegation and false accusation. Our legal system is a strong pillar of our democracy. We must trust that, should any threat of violence come into play, the Family Court would naturally take this into account and act in the best interests of the child.

I believe the coalition got it largely right in 2006 when the Family Law Act was amended to include a presumption that parents equally share parental responsibility for their children. If there is evidence of violence, that presumption should not and will not apply. We cannot allow claims by either parent to be coloured by dissatisfaction or rage at a former partner or situation. The consequences of severing all contact between a child and a parent are significant and long-reaching. I agree with the member for Blair that this must only be a last resort, which is why the coalition will continue to fight the removal of the friendly parent provision requiring family courts to consider how willing a parent is to facilitate a positive relationship between the other parent and their child.

Currently the courts are bound by a provision to make costs orders against a parent found to have knowingly made a false allegation or statement in the proceedings. By removing mandatory costs orders as a disincentive, you risk opening a Pandora's box of unsubstantiated and uncorroborated claims. The report by the Australian Institute of Family Studies found that more than two-thirds of those surveyed did not believe that the prospect of an adverse costs order had discouraged allegations of violence or child abuse that were genuinely held and likely to be true. That is not to say there are not occasions where this has weighed upon the minds of parents. There are unfortunately cases which, for whatever reasons, slip through the cracks.

I have written to the Attorney-General, my neighbour across the river, on several occasions to raise these matters with him. I have always been pleased to receive a reply. I think that reflects his interest in these matters. I have made representations on behalf of my constituents in the shire on this very issue. A grandmother wrote to me expressing her concerns about the experiences a number of young mothers from the shire had had with the Family Court, including her own daughter. These cases involved allegations of abuse by spouses and the custody arrangements of their children. There were, to say the least, very difficult circumstances. My constituent wrote, and I think this is well worth noting in the context of this debate: 'Mothers are, by nature, nurturers and children need to be protected from harm. It takes a lot of courage for a mother to leave an abuser and to try to keep herself and her children safe.' She observed that it had been her experience that the legal system empowers the abuser to continue the abuse through the court process and that the mother's and children's best interests are not being validated. My constituent spoke of the family law court making judgments favouring abusive men in shared parenting arrangements and of evidence dismissed against the perpetrators of violence.

I raise that simply to raise the concerns of a constituent and to put it in the mix of the debate. Admittedly no two cases are the same and certainly you do not change a law based on one set of circumstances. So, equally, I raise the case of a young man in my own electorate who has not missed one of his support payments, loves his kids deeply and is not the subject of any allegations of improper conduct, nor would he be I believe. He has not seen his daughter for two years. As a father of two daughters, I could not think of anything worse than not being able to see your daughters. He has custody arrangements that give him access to his daughter and he has not seen his daughter for two years. He is frustrated that the orders that he has are not being enforced, which is a complaint I hear regularly from constituents. I know it is not an easy matter, but when a father cannot see his daughters for two years and he has a legal right to see those daughters and that is not occurring, surely we must be looking at things that may assist in these cases. That father advocated to me a points system that would reward parents for meeting their financial obligations and penalise those who continually breached their custody arrangements or who denied a former partner access visits. For what it is worth, I think these things should be considered for breaches of custody orders where one partner has denied another partner their legal access to their children—whether by wilful obstruction or noncompliance, or by seeking not to support the undertaking of orders. Clearly, we need to look at a system that will encourage compliance to ensure that children grow up knowing both of their parents wherever possible.

Another constituent wrote to me observing: 'The safety of a child should be put before unsupervised time spent with an abusive parent. A child can have a meaningful relationship with both parents, but if there are real issues of risk it must be undergoing supervision at final orders. Supervised access by a perpetrator of family violence would remove the child from exposure to destructive behaviours and the courts would not be placing a child back into a potentially unsafe situation at final orders.' She made the case that all officers, practitioners and advisers in the family law system should undergo mandatory training in the effects of family violence and abuse. This training, she argues, 'would be a valuable tool in recognising the tactics used to manipulate evaluators and judges or to intimidate the victim. Without domestic violence training of those serving the family law system, despite their years of experience, abusers may be judged time after time in the same way, which puts children at risk.' These are all valid considerations.

There are things we could be doing better when it comes to family law. I have no doubt that is the case. It is like the ever-receding finish line, but it is one that we must continue to strive for and urged towards. I welcome discussion of this bill. We in this House are united in agreement about the need to protect and safeguard children, regardless of where we sit. No-one in this place would seek to suppress discussions that strive to better protect those most in need of our help or to ensure that our families, wherever possible, can be held together. In the sad case where that is no longer possible, then we should seek to preserve as much of those relationships as possible.

I do not believe that the amendments proposed by the government, in their current form, are the full answer at this point. Winding back the Ruddock reforms, measures that are proven to have made a difference, is very dangerous. It is important to note, as a word of caution, that opportunities to reach common ground and make constructive progress should not disintegrate into the slinging of mud and hurling of insults. This debate should not be a chance to take swipes at one other—the stakes are too high. This act has very real repercussions for the way our children live and how they grow up. I look forward to continuing this debate.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011 is an opportunity to place a spotlight on a whole range of issues that are not dealt with this in the bill. However, because of the way in which this bill has been constructed, what I am going to say is directly pertinent to it.

On 19 May, a report in the Sydney Morning Herald, said that the New South Wales 'top cop':

… is embarking on a personal crusade to tackle the hidden ''monster'' of child sexual abuse.

Spurred by a spike in the report of assaults, particularly those that occur behind the closed doors of family homes, the Police Commissioner, Andrew Scipione, has told the Herald the community can no longer afford to turn a blind eye.

Mr Scipione said:

This is a monster that is eating at the very heart of our society and we cannot afford to pretend that it's not happening.

…   …   …

Published material is limited by legal obligations preventing the identification of victims. In the case of incest, identifying the offending family member would also identify the child.

Last week there was a rally in front of Parliament House. The rally was held by Rally for Children's Safety, an alliance of community groups, to highlight research that has been done on the way in which children who may have been abused are dealt with under family law. For a long time, I have advocated that we need to again allow the press back into the family law courts. When I say 'again' that is misleading—they have never been allowed in. For many people the family law court has become a very dark place. Under its rules you may not talk or publish about it. Worse than that: it is the only court in the land which the press may not attend. As I said, I have made this statement loud and clear to all parts of society, because I believe that when you shut the press out a court can become a dark place. As I said, for many people it has become a dark place, and I think we need to let the light in.

Like other members, I have constituents who come into my office and tell stories about how their children have been taken away from them. Recently, the number of mothers who come into my office exceeds the number of fathers, but it does not preclude fathers. I also have fathers who come in needing justice.

The report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, in December 2003, Every picture tells a story, from which the 2006 reforms were put in place, advocated most strongly that family court business be referred to a tribunal and that a tribunal deal with most of the business that now comes before the family courts and that the family courts have a restricted jurisdiction. That recommendation was not taken up, but other recommendations were. I was part of the coalition party room that said we needed to do this. Professor Parkinson was also very involved. He was on radio the other day pointing out that so much more needs to be done—far beyond the extent of what is in this bill. I stress the importance of the inquiry that is currently going on in the Senate. I note that a reference was attempted to be made to a relevant House of Representatives committee, but that committee refused to take that reference because of the inquiry already going on in the Senate. The Senate committee was originally meant to report in July—I think it was on 23 July—but I note that they have now extended that until August. It is an inquiry which is attracting many submissions from people who see that the way in which the court currently operates does not meet the needs of children in particular.

The Australian Institute of Family Studies, while doing a review of the 2006 reforms, found that 60 per cent of separated parents were in a friendly or cooperative relationship. Most separated parents are able to make parenting arrangements with little use of family law services or lawyers; however, for families where complex issues such as family violence, family safety issues, mental illness and substance addiction exists there is a high use of family relationships services, courts and lawyers.

I refer to an inquiry I chaired back in 2006 that looked into the impact of illicit drugs on families. I found that in any one year in excess of 266,000 complaints are made about the abuse of children. I know that today we have 35,000 children who are in out-of-home care. This great concern was echoed in the words of Commissioner Scipione when he spoke strongly about the need for us to be aware that there are such things as family violence and family abuse of children:

Defying common misconceptions about 'stranger danger', many had to share a dinner table and bathroom with their abuser …

That is a terrifying prospect. There is a need to investigate those allegations when they arise. Professor Parkinson, who has been very much involved in the issues of family break-ups and dealing with the welfare of children, said on 25 May in an interview with Fran Kelly on ABC radio:

There's much more we could be doing to improve the system in terms of protecting kids and in protecting victims of violence … However, it requires resources and it requires services. Changing the Act only changes the margins because most cases are decided without a Judge. About 93per cent of cases are resolved without the Judge giving a judgement. Changing how Judges decide cases concerns only seven per cent of all the cases in the family law system. While these changes help, they don't really make a huge difference. What would make a huge difference is to have resources for investigation and assessment at an early stage of the process.

There does seem to be a real problem in getting evidence into the Family Court when allegations are made. Because of the closed nature of the court, we are unable to see patterns or reasons given. Often much of what happens in the court is not reflected in the transcript. So I think there is a desperate need to open up the courts like every other court. I think we learnt that from the court of Star Chamber, all those centuries ago, when it became a place of abused justice. It should have awakened us to the fact that we should never have imposed a ban on the press being allowed into the family law court. I am not suggesting for a moment that names should be published or that people should be photographed or identified. What I am saying is that cases should be able to be reported on if the names of the individuals concerned are suppressed. Then we could perhaps start to see patterns in the way the court operates and maybe we could see the need for change. Rather than having an assessment of what has happened after the event we could see what is happening in real time.

In speaking to this bill I want to make two very strong points. I want to make the point that children in the current situation are in a position of danger. If you read some of the submissions to the Senate inquiry and you read the stories of heartbreak, you know that something needs to be done. If you read the analysis that we are only dealing with a small percentage of people who have marriage breakdowns and manage to cope, we are dealing with a relatively small percentage—seven per cent. If you listen to those on the front line—like Commissioner Scipione, like the Benevolent Society who says there is a desperate need for more reform, or like Professor Parkinson who says that we need to go further—then the current Senate inquiry is very important.

As the committee begins its public hearings and as we hear stories, I think we have to open our minds and say that we always have to be on the lookout for ways in which we can protect children. They are our most precious gift. We can look at the stories of young adults who have come out of abusive households. We can look at children who have been sexualised because of various practices which have unfortunately happened in the family home. These could have happened for all sorts of reasons, from mental illness through to drug and alcohol abuse; certainly, many of those were instanced in the inquiry that I chaired. We cannot have a closed mind and say, 'One solution is the solution for all time.' We have to keep looking at it. Most importantly, the plea I make today is the one that I have been making for a long time to a vast number of people, some of whom hopefully will pick it up: we need to open the family law court to allow the press in and allow the light to shine on what many parents feel is presently a very dark place.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011. This bill amends the Family Law Act 1975 in relation to protection for children and families at risk of violence and abuse, so it is a very significant bill and one that both sides of the House are most concerned to see is as right as it can possibly be. We need to have world's best practice in this area of legislation and we certainly do not need any part of this bill to be captured by minority groups who cannot justify their claims with facts or the realities of what happens throughout Australia.

The bill makes several technical amendments which correct drafting and minor policy oversights and provide other efficiencies for the court and litigants. But we as the opposition are most concerned by some other amendments. The coalition reaffirms the 2006 reforms which we made. These were to help build healthy relationships and to try wherever possible to prevent the separation of parents, leading to the need for special arrangements for their children to live in different places. We aimed to encourage greater involvement of both parents in their children's lives after separation but at the same time we knew we needed to protect children from violence and abuse that may have been occurring within the relationship. We wanted to help separated parents agree on what was best for their children, ideally through mediation or agreements outside the court system. We wanted to establish highly transparent and easily accessed services for families. We wanted those to be available and accessible in the regions as well as metropolitan areas and we wanted to be able to cut the red tape, the bureaucracy and the delays which make the trauma of family separation and the need to support children even more difficult.

The proposed amendments in the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill include provision to give effect to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which decision makers may consider when dealing with children's matters. The convention requires that the best interests of the child are considered first and foremost. Protection of the child from harm is therefore weighted above the child having a meaningful relationship with both parents if there is harm involved or threatened in that relationship. We argue that this need is already in the act and the amendment is not necessary. The existing legislation provides for the interests of the child to be paramount and take pre-eminence over the maintenance of a meaningful relationship between both parents.

The bill aims to change the definition of family violence. The exposure draft definition of family violence includes behaviour that is emotionally, psychologically or economically abusive or threatening. Many stakeholders have voiced their concern that the extension or generalising of the definition of family violence can lead to vexatious claims—that is, the use of this broad definition could more reflect the marital discord than the realities of abuse within the family. It is very important that we make sure the court always deals with facts rather than responding to children being used as weapons to inflict greater harm on an ex-partner. It must always be the case that claims are based on fact. When you have a broadening of a definition, as proposed, there is real concern about the opportunity for more vexatious claims to be made—claims not based on fact but relating to marital discord or ex-marital discord rather than the children's needs.

The bill aims to repeal the 'friendly parent' provision. The bill aims to strengthen the obligations of lawyers, dispute resolution practitioners, family consultants and counsellors to prioritise the safety of children. Again, we argue that that is already in the act. The amendments repeal the provision for costs orders to be made in the case of false family violence allegations. We wonder why you would want to do that. Surely this is a very common sense provision and it helps to make sure that we do not have claims being made which are more about the great hatred between the two partners than about reflecting the realities of family violence. The amendment also provides for simpler procedures for the participation of child welfare agencies in family law proceedings. Certainly that is a good idea.

There are many forms of violent behaviour perpetrated against women in Australia and inevitably against their children. There is no doubt that we have a major problem in Australia in relation to domestic violence and sexual assault. In fact, it is one of the most pervasive and damaging forms of violence experienced across Australia and it has been for a very long time. I would like to say that evidence shows it is diminishing; unfortunately that is not the case.

Violence not only affects the victims themselves, the partners, but invariably impacts on the children who are exposed to it and the extended families. We know there can be intergenerational abuse when a child learns in their household that striking out to cause physical harm, abuse and threats are ways to deal with frustrations rather than learning that there is an alternative way of dealing with the problems of life. We need to make sure our children are no longer seeing violence in their homes.

One in three Australian women say they have experienced physical violence since the age of 15, and almost one in five have experienced sexual violence. In 2005, over 350,000 women said they had experienced physical violence. The key results from the Bureau of Statistics are that 23 per cent of women who have ever been married or in a de facto relationship say they have experienced violence by a partner at some time during that relationship. Moreover, 42 per cent of women who had been in a previous relationship reported violence by a previous partner. Half of the women experiencing violence by their current partner experienced more than one incident of violence, and these incidents included stab or gunshot wounds and other serious injuries. It is extraordinary and shocking too that we have had research in Australia asking teenage boys and girls whether striking a partner was appropriate and that the response was often yes it was appropriate in a relationship. Thirty-five per cent of women who experienced violence from their partner also experienced that violence during periods of separation. Of all the women who experienced this violence, only 4.5 per cent contacted a crisis organisation. I think this is a very serious problem. Only 19 per cent of women who were physically assaulted in the previous 12-month period contacted the police. That is less than 20 per cent. Forty-two per cent, nearly half, gave the main reason for not contacting police after the incident as wishing to deal with the problem themselves.

Unfortunately we know that when women do contact police or other emergency services that is when the prospect of the violence against them escalating becomes real. As the Federal Police have said to me, the most dangerous time for a woman in a violent relationship is when she seeks help. That is when she is most likely to be even more seriously injured or even killed. This is a terrible problem for Australians. We need to be dealing with the incidence of domestic violence. We need to be making sure that our support agencies, like the police, the ambulance services and the medical profession, are well able to protect women when they come forward and beg for assistance.

I have to say that I have been hugely disappointed that a program started under the coalition government in north-east Victoria called BSafe has not been re-funded. 'B' stands for Benalla and 'safe' is self-evident. This program provides support and protection to women who have had restraining orders taken out against abusive partners. They are issued with a fairly low-cost monitor. They are a bit like the monitors you see the elderly use to call for help when they have fallen. The monitor is given to women and some of their children who are old enough to understand its use. Through these monitors they can contact a monitoring service that is aware that they have a restraining order and they then immediately call the police should this small monitor be activated. Whenever the abusive partner comes near the home or tries to break the restraining order in any way, they simply press the button on the monitor. A call centre is immediately informed and then that call is immediately redirected to local police. Women have found that this simple device has substantially lessened attempts by abusive partners to break their orders. Police have seen different behaviour from the abusive partner when they are aware that the police will come quickly when the monitor is activated.

The tragedy is that this program runs out of funding in August this year. We are talking about several hundred thousand dollars to fund the program and a coordinator who manages the use of the monitors. There are some 70 women who have had these monitors and have found them to be so effective in giving them back freedom and a life without fear. Unfortunately, already the coordinator is having to tell these women that the service is to be cut off. Already the coordinator of this program is having to tell the police and other local community service providers that they cannot take the new numbers of women who are being referred to the agency.

We know that the program has been enormously successful. It has been demonstrated to be such. It even won an award recently as one of the most successful programs in dealing with the issue of domestic violence. Despite all that, this program is not to be funded after August this year. I find that extraordinary. The program should be expanded across Australia, not cut off. It has been the means for a lot of women to regain a decent life and break the cycle of intergenerational abuse. It has allowed women to stay in their homes. It has allowed children to continue to go to their local schools and retain proximity to grandparents and other supporting family members. Until these small devices were in the hands of these women, too many of them simply had to continue to run and hide because they were forever being pursued by partners breaking the restraining orders that were out against them. I ask the government to forget non-essential amendments to an act which has been working effectively. Instead they should be focusing on the programs which actually do great good when they are in the community in the hands of service providers such as the BSafe program.

We also have a great deal of difficulty in properly staffing our counselling, monitoring and mediating services in rural and regional areas. We have to make sure that we do not always have a two-speed economy, with better services provided to metropolitan families in need than to rural families in need.

I also need to refer to the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children. This plan recognises the diversity of the needs of women with disabilities, young women, women from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, Indigenous women, same-sex attracted women and older women, and provides scope to tailor responses based on individual needs.

We find that this bill today contains many measures which will not help at all in ensuring that children are always given priority when discussing their future. It does not make sure that, after a separation, where there is no issue of child safety, both mother and father can continue to have a meaningful relationship with their child. It is not a perfect act; no-one argues that. But certainly we in the coalition believe the amendments that have been proposed in this bill need to be re-examined, because the issues are just too important to listen to only a tiny minority with an agenda whose greatest priority is not always the safety of the children in our community.

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate. I will just pick up on some of the concluding comments of the previous speaker. I note that these amendments are not based on the view of a minority, tiny or otherwise. The amendments are based on four significant reports, including one by the Australian Institute of Family Studies which was commissioned during the period of the former government, another by the Family Law Council and another by Professor Richard Chisholm after some very distressing events. Since the initial draft was prepared, the amendments have also been supported by the Australian Law Reform Commission and the New South Wales Law Reform Commission in its report, which resulted in particular in further reflection upon the definitions of family violence and abuse.

We have essentially introduced these amendments to help achieve safer outcomes for children caught up in the family law system, and that should be the important focus and I will stress that. Over 15 years in parliament I have spoken with many everyday Australians who are wedged in difficult and complex family law disputes. I have listened to their stories, I have asked questions and at times I have heard some pretty confronting answers, including with respect to some high-profile cases. I have received a great deal of advice from a range of family law professionals and experts, from people who work in the system every day, and I have referred to those reports that essentially provide the basis for these reforms.

I must say, despite the recognition of and concern about family violence that has been reflected by all members, I have been disappointed with the opposition's response. The government categorically rejects amendments that would undercut key measures to protect vulnerable children and families in our family law system. Family law is obviously a complex and fraught area, but facts are crucial if we are to address those matters that have contributed to families being at risk of violence and abuse. With respect, I think it is somewhat arrogant of those opposite to assume to place themselves in the position of experts based on anecdotal reports to them, ignoring at the same time those four reports to which I have referred. I would question, with respect, whether any member on the other side has read or substantially read those reports or summaries of those reports.

Indeed, we believe those opposite have adopted an incorrect frame of reference—that is, a focus on the rights of parents, whether they be from fathers groups or mothers groups. We say, and we make no apology for saying, that the frame of reference in these amendments is quite clearly the rights of children. For instance, when considering the confronting topic of family violence, the member for Bennelong focused on the parents' right to seek reduced child support. When speaking about factors relevant to the child's best interests, the member for Forrest said that the bill basically reverses the presumption of innocence. When speaking about the mandatory cost order provision, the member for Cowan talked about 'trampling on the rights of the party'—the party being the parent. This bill is a family law bill; it is not a child support bill and it is not a criminal law bill. It is a bill concerned with ensuring that parenting arrangements for children are safe. It is not about the rights of mothers groups or the rights of fathers groups, as I have said. It is about the rights of those most vulnerable in our community: our children. I want to continue stressing that point. It is not about impeding safe parenting relationships in any way, shape or form. They are not at risk. We recognise they are the majority of relationships, but there are nonetheless a substantial minority where children are at risk, and we are neglectful in our responsibility to those children if we do not act in the face of those four very substantial, very well-researched reports.

As I understand it, the opposition specifically opposes the new definition of family violence. This is a keystone of the reforms. The bill greatly improves the existing definition because it better captures harmful behaviour. It is more descriptive and requires decision makers to closely consider the personal experience of the child growing up in a family riddled with violence. Family violence is not generic or superficial. It is individualised and gravely insidious. A number of members said that this is substantially irrelevant to the work of the courts because courts only consider five per cent of cases, but that is why we need such a detailed and comprehensive definition of both violence and abuse to be in the act: it is those definitions that provide the benchmark which over time changes culture, which the courts by the implementation of the legislation will assist in developing.

The government specifically rejects any proposal that would require family violence to be hinged on, for instance, how a reasonable person might react in a particular situation or what the violent perpetrator might have intended. People should not be afraid that their experiences will be dismissed. They should not have the fear of losing their children or suffering prejudice in proceedings if they speak up about their concerns. The proposed definition is closely aligned, as I have indicated, to the recommendations of the Australian and New South Wales law reform commissions. We believe, as a result of public submissions, that it has received strong public support.

The opposition also opposes changes to the cooperative or friendly parent provisions. It says it is concerned that the reforms are not evidence based. I have referred to the evidence that is the basis of our reforms. The member for Stirling in particular argued there is no credible evidence suggesting this provision is a disincentive to disclosure. He said the Family Law Council described criticism of the provision as 'gossip' and, quite astonishingly, the member for Berowra agreed with him. With great respect to those two members, that is a gross misrepresentation of the council's report and advice. In its family violence report, the council specifically advocated the repeal of these cooperative parenting provisions. Why? Because they are a disincentive for people to report their concerns of violence and abuse, and that is what the government is addressing in its amendments. In its submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, for instance, the council said:

… there is considerable concern that a vulnerable parent may elect not to disclose family violence or child abuse for fear of being considered an 'unfriendly parent'.

I am very concerned that the opposition views that considerable concern voiced by the council for the victims of family violence as gossip. While we play politics in this House, when there is such a substantial body of evidence surely we owe it to the children of this nation to approach this debate at a far more sophisticated level.

The member for Stirling also claimed that the Australian Institute of Family Studies report Evaluation of the 2006 family reforms did not provide any basis for the reforms that the government has proposed. That evaluation was instigated by the former government. The opposition must not have read that report by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, including its submission to the Senate inquiry into the bill, which states

… two specific aspects of the current legislative framework operate to discourage allegations of family violence from being raised: FLA s60CC(3)(c) ("friendly parent" provision) and s117AB (costs orders for knowingly made false statements). This evidence supports the repeal of these provisions in the proposed Bill.

So it is quite inappropriate for the opposition to mislead the House regarding the nature of those submissions.

I thank the member for Stirling for drawing the attention of the House to the report of Professor Richard Chisholm and to his recommendations about amendments to the 'friendly parent' provisions—that is, if a parent is deemed to be uncooperative by raising allegations of concern about violence and abuse, they may potentially, under the current legislation, be deemed to be an uncooperative or unfriendly parent, suffering prejudice in their submissions to the court. As submissions from key stakeholders show, both to the public consultation on this bill and the Senate committee's current inquiry, those who work in the system and family law experts all support this proposal because it is based on such solid evidence.

In terms of the issue of costs orders, the opposition has argued that the government is opening up the way for false allegations of violence to be made in court. This is nonsense and so too is the claim that the evidence relied on is misleading. Professor Chisholm recommended this repeal, and his submission to the Senate inquiry stated that the provision seemed to operate as a disincentive to disclosing family violence and did not appear to have had any beneficial effect—and I remind honourable members of the timing of when Professor Chisholm was engaged to provide advice to government. The Family Law Council said there is no evidence that section 117AB was achieving its purpose of discouraging false allegations of violence. The repeal of section 117AB has strong public support, including from the legal profession and key stakeholders in the family law community. The opposition said that if a court were prepared to make a finding that a party had knowingly given false evidence there was no reason why a costs order should not follow. I could not agree more. The act already provides precisely for that and it provides disincentives for making a false allegation or false denial in parenting matters through its existing powers in section 117 of the act. It already has that discretion and that power.

I turn to the opposition's objections to including a reference to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child as a specific object of part VII of the act. The convention sets out many rights of children, such as considering the child's best interests and ensuring that children are protected from physical and emotional harm. The opposition seems to have forgotten that the bill is about family violence and abuse as well as advancing the 'best interests' principle, and this measure, we believe, will fortify the focus on the rights of the child and the rights specifically of children to live free from harm and the fear of harm. Recognising the convention in the act will provide a strong statement that we as Australians are committed to protecting children, particularly when relationships break down. I have had very strong support from the court for including this object in the act. Incidentally, I suggest that the member for Hasluck re-read the explanatory memorandum at paragraph 23, page 5. Perhaps he made an innocent mistake when he asserted, wrongly, that this document does not say that the act prevails over the convention. It greatly concerns me that the opposition has apparently ignored the significant body of evidence that calls for these reforms.

In concluding, the bill takes positive action to ensure the safety of children and to ensure their best interests are prioritised. I have said time and time again that the government supports shared parenting but only where this is safe for the child. The bill has been the subject of extensive public consultation, and I thank stakeholders for their contributions to the development of the bill. We as a government are proud to have introduced this bill and we will be even prouder when it becomes law and makes a difference for the children and families who are faced with family violence and child abuse. The very substantial body of evidence shows that these reforms are needed, and this government will do everything we can to make the system work better for these vulnerable families and children. A urge the opposition to do the same. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.