Peta Murphy (Dunkley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to speak in support of this private members' bill tabled by my colleague the member for Moreton. It is of course disappointing that this is not a reform that the government has seen fit to take up itself. We have spent so much time over so many years in this parliament and in parliaments across the country talking about how we can make children safer; talking about reforms to systems to try to protect our most precious citizens and our future; talking about how we can reduce the instance of family and domestic violence. This is, on the face of it, a simple reform that would do just that. But it is more than that. It's a deeply important reform to make sure that children and the best interests of children are genuinely at the heart of our family law system.

We know that our family law system doesn't work perfectly. In many respects it's hard to imagine a family law system that everyone who enters it and exits it would be happy with, because, by definition, you're not going into the family law system because things are going well. It's difficult enough when relationships break down and people's dreams and hopes for the future aren't realised, and when couples have to split finances, assets and sometimes dreams; it's another thing altogether when children are involved. Far too often, those of us who are privileged to be in this place have representation after representation from constituents who are struggling to get through day by day because they're not getting the child support payments they are owed, or they have no savings left because they've all been drained in legal fees from family law cases that have been drawn out and out and out. They're absolute tragedies, but in some respects they pale in comparison to the tragedies of children who have grown up witnessing and experiencing family and domestic violence. The Family Court system is essentially an extension of that.

What this bill does is remove section 61DA of the Family Law Act, which provides the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility in parenting matters. This presumption, as has been shown by report after report and organisation after organisation, has caused confusion since it was introduced. The bill also removes another section which mandates that before a judge can determine what parenting arrangements should be ordered, the judge must navigate a complicated pathway and consider various options for the child. The law as it operates is currently difficult for ordinary people to understand. It makes court processes longer and more expensive. What is important, and what this bill ensures, is that any decision about a child is based on what is in that child's best interest, without the need for a complex pathway—a pathway that has been described as 'practically impenetrable' by a judge who has to apply it.

The presumption of equal shared parental responsibility sounds like it would be a good thing on the face of it, but in fact it has put victims of domestic violence on the back foot in parenting negotiations and has caused the need for fighting against assumed norms of cooperative and ongoing parenting where that might not be safe for children. It's to the credit of the member for Moreton that he's put forward this bill in order to redress that issue with the support of family law and family and domestic violence organisations around the country.

My local community legal centre has experienced the shadow pandemic of domestic violence first hand. As Jackie Galloway from PCLC has said:

… 2020 will be remembered by many of those working in the family violence sector as the worst on record.

There has been a surge in people affected by family violence for the first time and a surge in people seeking help. When one woman dies every week in Australia, more has to be done. (Time expired)

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When it comes to making the right and safest decisions for children, we must always keep their best interests close at heart. Family law and the court process can be complex, difficult and emotionally exhausting for many Australian families. As a father and grandfather myself, I believe that every single Australian child is worthy of the best future and best opportunities we can give them. I know how important it is for a child to grow up in a loving, caring, clean and safe home. We must create this for them and never stop improving the legal process so that we can make it possible.

We have so many kids of families here in Australia. Some children are raised by a single mother or single father, others by a step-parent, a foster parent, a grandparent or in a family unit with both parents. We must take the rights and feelings of every child into consideration, because they deserve to be given the opportunity to enjoy a meaningful relationship with their family. In some cases, children also need to be protected from violence within the family dynamic, and it's here that we need to strive to ensure that no child is ever put in the position of fearing for their life or being harmed at the hands of a person who should be caring for them. This is paramount to allowing children to live a life of quality, love, compassion and comfort.

By improving and making amendments to Australia's Family Law Act and our court and legal systems, we are protecting our children, putting their wellbeing first, strengthening our Australian family units and building cohesive communities. This is what I hope the Family Law Amendment (A Step Towards a Safer Family Law System) Bill will achieve for Australian families. Under section 61DA of the Family Law Act 1975, there is a presumption that it is in the best interests of children that both parents equally share parental responsibility, such as jointly making long-term decisions about their children. This provision was a significant part of reforms to family law, made by the Howard government in 2006, to emphasise the importance of children maintaining a meaningful relationship with both parents where it is safe to do so. However, shared parental responsibility does not always apply. The presumption does not apply where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent has engaged in family violence or abuse of the child or children. This is set out in section 61DA(2) of the Family Law Act. In cases where it does apply, it can be rebutted if it's not in the best interests of the child. This is set out in section 61DA(4). It is also worth being clear that equal shared parental responsibility does not mean that the child is to spend equal time with both parents. A legislative note sets this out immediately below the section 61DA presumption. Where the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility does apply, the court must also consider whether the child spending equal time, or substantial and significant time, with their parents is both in that child's best interests and reasonably practicable.

This is an area that the Australian Law Reform Commission, the ALRC, considered as part of its review of the family law system. The report stated:

The ALRC supports the idea that a presumption of shared parental responsibility serves as a good starting point for negotiations between parents and recommends that the concept be retained.

The ALRC did not recommend the removal of the presumption; it did recommend clarification to reduce the confusion that there can be around its meaning.

While considering the ALRC response and while a joint select committee has been considering this topic, the government has put in place a range of measures to improve safety within the family law system. The government has invested $13½ million in the launch of new family safety risk screening, and triage processes being piloted in the family law courts. There is government funding of $10.4 million to pilot the rollout of co-located state and territory child protection and policing officials in family law courts across Australia. This government banned the cross-examination of victims in family law proceedings to protect them. That has been in place since September 2019. The government also funded the establishment of family advocacy support services, and, since 2016, it has committed over $48.9 million for this program through to 2022.

At the end of the day, we cannot lose sight of what's best for the children of Australia. We must go through this process for a variety of reasons. We can't let them get lost inside the system or be forgotten, because it will shape their future. It could mean the difference between a good future and a bad future. The main priority must always be the children's welfare.

Debate adjourned.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:20