Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

As senators are probably aware, we have similar amendments that deal with the best interests of the child, and in another amendment we seek to define ‘meaningful relationship’. The Greens are concerned about the two-tiered approach that is being taken in section 60CC, believing that it is a flawed process because there are two primary considerations. In situations where there is family violence we believe the two primary considerations cancel each other out. We do not believe that you can be fostering a meaningful relationship with the parent as well as protecting a child from harm.

We are also deeply concerned that the views of the child have been taken down as a secondary or additional consideration. We believe the process in the existing act is in fact better. As I said, we will be moving an amendment to define what a meaningful relationship is later.

We also believe that there are flawed assumptions underlying this proposal. It assumes that all children see contact with both parents as in their best interests in every case. We are also concerned that there is a presumption that a violent and abusive parent is better than no parent at all. I challenge that assumption. I know that other people do not necessarily believe that, but I am seriously challenging that assumption.

We are disappointed that the wishes of the child are thought to be a secondary consideration. Already access is granted to violent non-custodial parents against the express wishes of the child. There are a number of studies that document that. A study by Michael Flood from the Australia Institute says:

When fathers are subject to allegations of abuse, their chances of being denied contact with children are remote even if these allegations are substantiated, and the numbers of parents falsely accused of child abuse are tiny compared to the numbers of children who are being abused and about whom the Family Court never hears

This paper goes on to describe other circumstances where the child’s wishes have been ignored.

The legislation as it stands effectively puts the parents’ desire for access ahead of the child’s need for safety and protection. We do not believe that is an appropriate approach to be taking in this legislation. We believe that, as has come through in many of our other amendments, the best interests of the child must be put first, and in some instances in areas of domestic violence and abuse the best interest of the child is not necessarily to be with both parents. It is not necessarily in the best interests of a child to be put with an abusive or violent parent. I do not believe that we should be codifying that.

As I said, we have further amendments that deal with meaningful relationship and subsequent amendments that deal with the best interests of the child. We do support the current existing approach in the act. We do not support the two-tiered approach. We believe that the two primary considerations are in conflict where you have situations of family violence and abuse. Therefore, we will be supporting these amendments.