Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

This is an area where sometimes there is a lot to be said about getting the language right. We agree on the issue of renaming ‘equal shared parental responsibility’ to ‘joint shared parental responsibility’ but we do prefer our own amendment on that point. Just so we are in the right area: we are dealing with Democrat amendment (2)—and there is an identical Greens amendment—and there are also Democrat amendments (17), (22) and (23) which deal with all of those matters. Sometimes it helps to outline all of that because they deal with an important area. As I said, I think a lot turns on language, particularly in this area.

We disagree with removing the presumption of shared parental responsibility. We believe that parents should be encouraged to remain actively involved in their children’s lives post separation. Even if they do not live with the child, there are many responsibilities that can be shared jointly. Of course, the shared responsibilities should not apply when family violence is involved in the case. I do not think that anyone would disagree with that. We believe the protections in the bill, with our amendments, would help prevent this from happening. Having said that, we will keep a close eye on the effect of these changes and reconsider our position if evidence emerges that the protections are not sufficient. We will remain open in this area. We are not going to close our view on this.

We also disagree with the amendment to remove the provisions of the bill that would require the court to consider equal or substantial and significant time with each parent. Those provisions require the court to go through a step-by-step, clear and transparent process for determining how time should be spent between the parents. It should make it easier for parents to understand how the court will approach the issue, and this in turn will help to build and maintain confidence in our law and courts. I think it is important to keep coming back to that. In this instance, where we are going to have family relationship centres and there is going to be an expected level of mediation, there will also still be the court process. It is important to ensure that that provision is still there and that people understand that the court is there for those cases that require adjudication. The provisions do not remove the court’s power to determine residency arrangement on the best interests of the child test. That clearly remains the paramount principle, as it should be.

They are the arguments as to why we will not be supporting the Democrat amendments—although I have couched our reasons more in an argument as to why we prefer our amendments. Ultimately, it will not matter, I suspect, as the government does have the numbers. Many hours ago I might have been saying something very similar, unfortunately. They will provide their outcome. What is disappointing in some respects is that the committee report, together with a number of committee reports, dealt with this. This area, as I said earlier, is one where sometimes people come with their own focus. I think it is sometimes helpful to stand back and have a look. You may not be there now but you might get there one day, and it is worth considering how it should, in truth, operate to ensure that there are outcomes that people can live with and outcomes that enable them to get on with their lives.