Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have been somewhat caught on the hop, having been in the chair. I had a list of questions which I forwarded to the Attorney-General in relation to this request, which deals with a step-parent and extends the definition of ‘step-parent’ contained within the Family Law Act. Firstly, you have the duty of a step-parent to maintain a child outlined in section 66M of the Family Law Act. You have the definition of ‘step-parent’, which is contained in section 4. Associated with that you have section 62B, which deals with the right of a child to have contact with a person by whom it is cared for. The wording in that section states that the person has to have that relationship with the child, and it talks of, for instance, a grandparent or relative. When you look at ‘relative’ in section 4, you see that that incorporates a step-parent. It would therefore seem that, in the two streams you are looking at—one dealing with contact with the child—you have an avenue of criteria which talks of a step-parent having an ability to have contact with the child; and, in the other avenue of maintenance, you have criteria set out in section 66M(3). Those criteria are quite exhaustive. They talk of the nature of the relationship and the duration.

The question I put to the government today is this: are we requiring more stringent criteria for the relationship of step-parent when it comes to maintaining the child, as opposed to the criteria for communication and contact with the child by a step-parent? The other questions I asked went to what effect the inclusion of a de facto relationship would have on a step-parent, what class of relationship would be included, were there any time requirements, were the criteria contained in section 66M(3) relevant—although that is spelt out under that duty to maintain, could it come within that?—and what could be the effects of this change in definition. You can appreciate that when you look at who should have contact with a child it should be in the best interests of the child that that occur and the person who has that contact should have some standing in relation to the child concerned. I have enumerated those questions in more detail in a letter to the Attorney-General and I would be obliged if the minister could advise the committee as to the government’s view on those questions that I have put.