Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Family Law Amendment Bill and the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill, which are two very important pieces of legislation because, undeniably, family breakdown needs to be managed with the utmost sensitivity. Family law has an extraordinary and direct impact on the Australian community and on the families that seek the support and services of the law in order to settle disputes that are seemingly often unresolvable, so it needs to be a system that is designed in a way that gives Australians who rely on it some of the support they need as they navigate what is probably one of the most difficult times in their lives. We know, sadly, no matter the best of intentions, tens of thousands of Australians will find themselves in need of the support of the family law system as they go through the distress, pain and sadness of separation. Luckily, only a small proportion of those cases, disputes, will be decided by a judge in the family law courts. As a nation, we must aim for a system that resolves those disputes as quickly, as cleanly and as fairly as possible. Children, clearly, are involved, so we should prioritise the interests of the children as we work our way through.

The Family Law Amendment Bill and the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill contain measures that the coalition unquestionably supports wholeheartedly, most particularly the provisions that are contained in the information-sharing bill. There are a number of areas that the measures in the Family Law Amendment Bill seek to address, but we are really concerned that the proposed solutions either go too far or have not been appropriately tested. There is no doubt that the changes contained in this bill have been put forward with the very best of intentions. We join with the government in recognising that these bills do seek to address a number of problems that clearly do need a solution. But in too many places, the proposals that have been put forward by this bill we as a coalition don't believe align with the problems that they are seeking to solve. They go beyond the recommendations we've seen in previous reviews. They are not all necessarily supported by the profession. Unintended consequences have been highlighted through the process or they have not been road tested in communities and on the ground to make sure that the people who will be directly impacted by the changes contained in these bills have been properly consulted. Because at the end of the day, a policy that is made without the people it impacts in the room where the policy is being developed will be a policy that will not be as good as policy that is designed with the people in the room.

So, although we recognise the problems, the coalition has real concerns that some of the measures put forward by the government through these bills will actually make things worse for Australian families. In all conscience, we cannot say in this place we are doing our jobs as legislators and regulators if what we put forward is actually making a situation worse. So we need to be very, very cautious as we move forward with these bills to make sure we are not doing something that, without necessarily intending to but because it has not been road tested and because it has not been consulted properly, actually makes things go worse. But it is particularly worrying, because it is becoming a bit of a track record of those opposite, that we see pieces of legislation put into this place that sound good on the surface but, when you start scratching the surface, you realise that they are not quite as good as they may sound.

We've seen so many times that the announcement that grabs the headline in the paper is the thing that this government is trying to secure. They have not done their homework. They have not done the hard yards. They have not done the consultation to determine what the actual consequences of this legislation or these policies are for the people who are impacted by them. Because they don't do their homework, because they don't attend to the detail, we start to see things unravelling. We've seen it time and time again with policies that have come into this place, and it concerns me, when we're talking about a policy area as important and as sensitive as when we're dealing with the Family Law Act, that once again we've seen legislation brought forward that has not been properly considered and that the flow-on impacts of some of the changes have not been mitigated in any way.

So this is something that, clearly, the coalition is particularly concerned about, and we'll be very keen to continue to prosecute this to make sure that the government actually understands that there are some significant concerns. We really hope that, in the interests of making sure that we protect Australians who need this really important service, the government will actually consider any amendments that are put forward that seek to make this bill better and not be belligerent and bloody-minded and just try and force the bill through as it is. Equally, I would hope that those at the other end of the table, the Independents and the Greens, would like to try to make sure that the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 is as good as it possibly can be because of the importance of this for Australians who are probably going through some of their darkest hours as they have to sort out a marriage break-up where children are involved.

In looking at the schedules that are contained in this bill, we see that schedule 1 would repeal most of the factors that the court must consider when determining the best interests of a child. I don't think that anybody in this place would dare to stand up and say that, when it comes to family breakdown and the resolution of that breakdown, the interests of the child should not be absolutely paramount in any decision-making, and we understand why the government has sought to address this. The list of factors is just way too long. It runs over three pages and almost 900 words. It's confusing and difficult for parents and courts, and it should be simplified. But there are some real concerns about the simplified list of considerations that has been proposed by this bill, because the list that Labor has put forward requires only that the court consider the benefit of a child being able to have a relationship with the child's parents and other people who are significant to the child where it's safe to do so. The list does not say anything about the relationship having to be meaningful.

I would have thought that a meaningful relationship is absolutely what we should be seeking to ensure. Omitting the word 'meaningful', albeit just one word, makes a really significant and substantial change to the meaning of what the court needs to undertake when determining the best interests of the child and in relation to the relationship that the child has with their parents. It sends a really significant signal to the court about the type of relationship that is important and the interests of the child. We are very concerned about the signal that the removal of the word 'meaningful' sends about the quality of the relationship that is being sought for the child to have with their family. For example, a supervised visit once a month may well be a relationship, but it may not necessarily be a meaningful relationship. Bodies like the Law Council of Australia have expressly raised this as an issue which should be corrected. So we are very keen to point out that this oversight in the legislation that the Albanese Labor government is seeking to bring into this place now must be rectified.

Labor's simplified list also requires the court to consider what arrangements would promote the safety of the child and each person who has care of the child. But, astoundingly, Labor's list does not require the court to consider existing family violence orders and the basis on which they were made. This is an issue that we in the coalition raised time and time again during the committee process. The failure to include family violence orders in these changes just adds weight to our concerns.