Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Hansard source

Family First recognises and honours the unique and irreplaceable role of mothers and fathers. Parents have the most important and the toughest job of all—raising children. They have the primary responsibility for nurturing, raising and educating their children, who are our nation’s future. As a society, we should do everything we can to support parents in this vital role. Family First salutes them.

Turning to the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2006, Family First’s top priority is the welfare of children. It is a sad and unfortunate fact of life that many relationships end. It is crucial that we find the best way of dealing with these situations to minimise the damage, particularly to children, but also to parents. When I first looked at this legislation I went over the statistics on divorce in Australia. In 2004 there were almost 53,000 divorces granted in Australia—and of course there are thousands of de facto relationships that also end. Looking at those 53,000 divorces as couples, that represents 100,000 people in relationship breakdowns, in the formal sense, for that year. Almost half of the divorces in 2004 involved children under 18 years of age. Of those, about one quarter involved children under five, and more than a third involved children between five and nine.

The Family Court is not a good place for Australian children. In almost 98 per cent of cases, a child will effectively lose one of their parents after a Family Court decision—creating a stolen generation of children. Only 2½ per cent of Family Court orders allow children to have equal time with both parents after a relationship breakdown. That does not make sense and it is not in line with what people would expect. Many would be surprised, as I was, to find out that it was only 2½ per cent.

Family First believes the first question we must always ask is: what is in the best interests of the child? Shared parenting is the best outcome for children, because children can continue to have a real father and a real mother. The current system is clearly not working, and this is having a damaging effect on children. Family First believes a new system is needed—and, to its credit, the government has realised that there is a problem and has introduced this bill. However, it needs to go further, which is why Family First is introducing amendments to ensure shared parenting is the norm.

The way children see it, in a household, they have equal access to their parents. When a relationship ends, the way to maintain equal access for children is shared parenting. If a parent has not done anything wrong, why should the child be penalised by effectively losing one of their parents? For this to work, the parent has to want to exercise their responsibility and be with their child. It is not our purpose to force parents to exercise shared parenting, but Family First would hope that all parents would want to. Just because a relationship ends does not mean the job of being a parent ends.

The value of relationships with extended family, such as grandparents, should never be underestimated. They are so important to children’s development, providing a greater sense of purpose, belonging and inheritance. Participation in extended family life improves children’s chances of building resiliency.

In summary, Family First strongly supports the introduction of a rebuttable presumption of equal parenting time for children after a relationship breakdown. Equal parenting time must be the starting point when considering arrangements after parents have separated—and I emphasise ‘the starting point’. It could be rebutted in a number of ways. One parent may argue to the court that equal parenting would not be in the interests of their child in their particular circumstances, perhaps due to work or travel commitments. The court may determine it could not be ordered because residing with one parent could pose a threat to the physical, psychological or emotional wellbeing of the child.

We all know that sole custody arrangements have caused much distress to children and their non-custodial parents—in most cases, fathers. Because of the way the Family Court follows precedents in determining residency orders, most parties have strong incentives to pursue sole residency orders, and too often the father loses out. Family First amendments are central to the hopes of many people in the community, particularly children, parents and extended families, who have been damaged by the entrenched views of the Family Court against equal parenting. Family First strongly supports their cause and will continue to champion it. Shared parenting is the best outcome for our children—and surely that is argument enough for Family First’s amendments.