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

I move:

(13)  Schedule 1, item 9, page 8 (lines 25 to 27) omit paragraph 60CC(3)(c), substitute:

             (c)    the willingness and ability of each of the child’s parents to facilitate, and encourage, a close and continuing relationship between the child and the other parent, except where such a relationship would be otherwise contrary to the best interests of the child;

           (ca)    paragraph (c) does not apply where the child has been, or is at risk of being, exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence in the relationship with the other parent;

Amendment (13) is an alternative to amendment (14). It proposes an alternative definition to the so-called ‘friendly parent’ provision. The Democrats seek to amend clause 60CC(3)(c) with the aim of ensuring that children are protected from harm—because we have been so successful so far. The Democrats seek to amend the provision to recognise the reluctance to facilitate a close and continuing relationship based on a genuine and well-founded concern about a parent’s capacity to parent or a concern about possible negative impacts on the child as a result of such a relationship. The changes to this provision are intended to take into account the need for parents to make protective decisions about their children. We believe that the provision as it currently stands needs to be redrafted so that what is in fact protective behaviour is not seen as disqualifying the parent who does not comply with the provision.

I suspect I can read the numbers on this one. If I could not succeed in getting an amendment passed that sought to define a meaningful relationship as one that did not have children at risk of abuse, neglect or family violence, I am not sure we will succeed on anything tonight, so I will keep my comments brief.