Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Democrat amendments (6) to (9), (11), (12), (14), (15), (18) and (19) on sheet 4866 revised:

(6)    Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (lines 9 and 10), omit “ensure that the best interests of the child are met by”.

(7)    Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (line 11), omit paragraph 60B(1)(a), substitute:

             (a)    except when it would be contrary to the best interests of children, ensuring that the children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives; and

(8)    Schedule 1, item 8, page 7 (after line 3), at the end of subsection 60B(2), add:

            ; (f)    children have the right to live free from abuse, neglect or family violence.

(9)    Schedule 1, item 9, page 8 (line 5), omit “subsections (2) and (3)”, substitute “subsection (3)”.

(11)  Schedule 1, item 9, page 8 (lines 6 to 15), omit subsection 60CC(2) and the heading to subsection 60CC(3).

(12)  Schedule 1, item 9, page 8 (line 8), before “the (first occurring)”, insert “subject to paragraph (b),”.

(14)  Schedule 1, item 9, page 8 (lines 25 to 27), omit paragraph 60CC(3)(c).

(15)  Schedule 1, item 9, page 9 (line 36) to page 10 (line 16) omit subsection 60CC(4).

(18)  Schedule 1, item 17, page 21 (after line 36), after subsection 63C(2C), insert:

     (2D)    The primary focus of a parenting plan must be the best interests of the child. Parenting plans must consider:

             (a)    A child’s rights to stability, security and adequate and responsible care

             (b)    A child’s own social networks and their ongoing ability to maintain such networks

             (c)    A child’s school, sporting and other leisure activities

             (d)    Any other special needs of the child.

(19)  Schedule 1, item 18, page 22 (line 28), at the end of paragraph 63DA(2)(c), add “and of the factors used for determining those best interests”.

These amendments seek to make changes to schedule 1 of the bill. Amendments (6) to (9) make changes to the objects in part VII. The changes are aimed at simplifying the bill and the factors the court must take into account when determining the child’s best interests. The Democrats believe that, with the bill as it currently stands, the construction of proposed section 60B risks misdirecting the court to consider two different sets of considerations as to what is in the child’s best interests. We believe it should be amended to reflect a reference to the best interests of the child. We have attempted to amend the bill accordingly.

We also want make sure the objects of the part are not an additional hierarchy of factors to be considered; we already believe the hierarchy in section 60CC is overcomplicated and problematic for a variety of reasons. We believe that amending the objects, as we are seeking to do, will deprioritise the right to contact focused on by the provision. We have qualified the ‘meaningful relationship’ provision so that it does not always conflict with the need to protect children from harm.

The Democrats also support the retention of the current structure of 68F because we object to the fact that children’s views have been relegated to ‘additional considerations’. Those senators who were involved in the preparation of the report, or indeed the second reading debate on this bill, will have heard senators, including me, outline our concerns that once again children’s best interests are being diminished or relegated in some way. Certainly we believe ‘additional considerations’ is a relegation. The bill of course is supposed to be about what is best for children, so I would have thought that their opinions should not be relegated to the position of an additional consideration.

We object in principle to the inclusion of proposed section 60CC(3)(c), and this group of amendments seeks to remove it. We consider this provision so problematic that we believe it would be best left out of these legislative changes. Proposed section 60CC(4) introduces a requirement for court to consider, when determining the child’s best interests, the extent to which each parent has fulfilled or failed to fulfil their responsibilities as a parent. It is similar, I guess, to the ‘friendly parent’ provision in its emphasis. I know that concerns have been expressed that the provision may encourage parents to focus on earning rights to their children. This is a concern that the Democrats agree with. We consider that the maintenance of stability in a child’s life is undermined by this amendment and it should not be introduced.

Amendment (18) of the Democrats seeks to introduce a provision that is based on a belief that parenting plans should not impinge on a child’s right to stability and security and their ability to maintain their own social networks and school, leisure and sporting activities. Finally, amendment (19) seeks to make the explanation of parenting plans and how they are determined much clearer for parents by including a requirement that advisers are to raise the factors for determining a child’s best interests.