Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Hansard source

The government, as I mentioned earlier, has elevated as an object of part VII, and a primary consideration for the court in determining the best interests of a child, the need to ensure that the child is protected from harm ‘from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence’. I just want to stress, for fear that my position may be misrepresented or misunderstood, that that is a primary consideration and, as such, it influences what is a ‘meaningful relationship’. What the government has done here is that it has considerations of equal weight: the safety of the child is not intended to be subordinate to the meaningful relationship; both factors are important and will be considered in the light of individual cases. To further define ‘meaningful relationship’ I think really does get us into more strife.

I think by having the meaningful relationship in one primary consideration and the protection of the child in the other, you have the two contrasting basic considerations. Rather than tamper with ‘meaningful relationship’, have the protection of the child as the other primary consideration. They can be competing interests; in happier circumstances they are not. But I make it very clear that the government have promoted, as a primary consideration and as an object of part VII, the protection of the child. We do not believe that it is necessary to therefore incorporate it into the definition of ‘meaningful relationship’. We think that would be fraught with even more danger and could then lead us down a very slippery path where all sorts of convoluted interpretations could take place. Rather, have the two basic pillars, as I have mentioned, rest there; and if they are in competition with each other, then it is for the court to determine.