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

The government opposes these two amendments. Just briefly, I will go through the reasons for that. Parenting plans are an important mechanism for parents to come to an agreement on their own, and I have already outlined that. A new provision in the bill inserts a default provision into parenting orders that they will be subject to any subsequent parenting plan. This is to allow a parent to agree to changes in how orders apply to them as the needs of their children change, without having to go back to court. That, we believe, is a very important aspect of this.

The Democrat amendment would defeat the purpose of this provision, which is to give people the opportunity to change their arrangements without having to use the court or the legal system. Parenting plans are voluntary agreements and parents can choose to go back to court if they need to. The other aspect dealt with the removal of the words ‘exceptional circumstance’. The bill inserts a default provision into parenting orders so that they will be subject to any subsequent parenting plan. As I said, this is to allow parents to agree to changes in how orders apply to them as the needs of their children change, without having to go back to court.

The bill includes the discretion for the court not to include the default provision in the parenting order in exceptional circumstances. This implements recommendation 34 of the House of Representatives Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee report. It ensures that when changes in circumstances lead parents to negotiate an appropriate alteration of arrangements in relation to the child, they are not required to return to court in order to implement that alteration. The court will be able to use this discretion where it has concerns that a later parenting plan would be unlikely to be made in the best interests of the child.

The bill provides that ‘exceptional’ is to include circumstances where the court considers that there is a need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm or from being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence or there is substantial evidence that one parent is likely to seek to coerce or use duress to gain the agreement of the other parent. This ensures that it is clear that the term ‘exceptional’ covers circumstances where there is a concern about the risks to the child where there is a risk the parent could seek to avoid parenting orders being enforceable by pressuring the other party to agree to a parenting plan. This of course was a concern that was mentioned by Senator Ludwig. We believe that these two amendments are inappropriate and we believe that what is in the bill is sufficient. The parties, the parents themselves, are the best people to come to an agreement as to what is best.