Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I am in the chamber and so, unfortunately, I cannot seek to incorporate my speech. It is a wonder Senator Joyce did not seek to incorporate from Antarctica and achieve his favourite pastime of being able to vote from afar.

The main aim of these amendments is to create a presumption of equal parenting time. This goes back to the very beginning of this debate several years ago. People listening to the debate tonight would be familiar with this issue, which we started off with a lot earlier this evening. Every detailed analysis of this proposal ends up with it being rejected. The original Every picture tells a story committee rejected this unanimously across all parties. All up, this issue has been considered by three parliamentary committees, none supporting an equal time rule.

Labor believes that the court has to consider the best interests of the child first, not the rights of parents. The best interest of the children cannot be determined by first reaching for the calculator. Children cannot and should not be treated as if they can be cut down the middle. Labor does support the increasing number of separated couples who are choosing equal time arrangements. We hope that the changes encouraging family dispute resolution and parenting plans will give them the flexibility they need to make those arrangements work. We also support the changes requiring the court to give consideration to equal time or substantial and significant time. This will encourage parties in the courts to consider the issue but not impose it when inappropriate.

It is the case, and it is very welcomed, that many of the old gender roles are breaking down. We no longer see family relationships in the simple terms of mother as carer and father as breadwinner. Our law does need to change to keep up to date with these changes. We believe consideration of equal time is the right step to take, but we oppose a presumption of equal time, because one size does not fit all. We believe in the paramountcy of the best interests of the child test, not parents fighting over children as the spoils of a marriage break-up.