Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make my contribution to the debate on the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 and the Family Law Amendment (Information Sharing) Bill 2023. I'll first say thank you to those who participated in the Senate inquiry, and particularly to my colleague Senator Scarr for the work that he did on the additional comments that have been made by the coalition in that report process. It is extremely important that this debate be conducted in the finest traditions of this place, because this legislation goes to the heart of what is happening in our communities. It goes to our families. We would all prefer that there weren't arguments, disputes, concerns, within family units, but, as a part of this debate, we're acknowledging and we're realising that, sadly, that is a reality. So we are dealing with the realities of family life and the issues that occur through human frailties, and I come to this debate not as someone who's a lawyer or who has training in the law but as a member of the parliament who sits down with families—sometimes fathers, sometimes mothers, sometimes grandparents—who are trying to navigate their way through what is for them a complex legal system but has the overlay of high emotion.

One of the real difficulties is that, when you are in a highly emotional state, it's difficult to make rational decisions. Your emotions take over. And so, for this parliament to ensure that there is a sound set of guiding principles that families can look to when going through the unfortunate moments of family breakdown and family breakup, they can apply those principles to that process. Now, with apologies to all the lawyers out there, it is best if families don't need a lawyer to get involved and can come to an agreed solution to their circumstance, bearing in mind that, particularly in the circumstance where there are children involved, this is a lifelong thing. This is a lifelong circumstance that they have to deal with.

There wouldn't be too many families in the country that aren't touched by it. I recall a discussion back in 2003, when the last major consideration of family law was undertaken, and the process that this parliament went through with the committee, chaired by former member Kay Hull, to look at all of the issues and to bring forward to the parliament a process of solution. In that circumstance, fortunately, we had cross-parliament agreement on the outcome. The last thing that we need in this space is for it to become an issue that's divided around partisan political lines. We need to come together as a parliament to provide an agreed, sensible solution that provides appropriate guidance to Australians who are dealing with these matters, even if they don't have to involve the legal profession. That's why I made the points that I did about the work with Senator Scarr and the coalition's comments in relation to the committee, because it's important that we soundly and sensibly work through the concerns that the coalition still has with the legislation as it stands and the guidance that it provides to families even if they don't require the services of the legal system to make their decisions, because they do look to the law. They do look to the law and they look to the principles of the law in making their decisions.

We shouldn't forget the extended families, as I said earlier. I've sat down on a number of occasions with grandparents who are looking after and raising their grandchildren and dealing with the difficulties, and I've spoken to grandparents who don't, for some reason, have access to their grandchildren, which prevents those children, who sit at the heart of what we're talking about today, from having their full family experience. If there are sound and good reasons that they don't have access to grandparents on either side, that should be appropriately reflected in this legislation.

There are a couple of things about some of the solutions that the government has put forward in this bill that the coalition are concerned will actually make things worse, particularly in the context of meaningful relationships and how those are defined and the removal of or changes in those provisions in the legislation. Understanding what children are looking for—understanding their perspectives and their capacity to make their own decisions—is really important. But, as I've said a couple of times, whether or not families are using the legal system to resolve their issues, they look to what the law says as guidance, because, if it progresses to the stage where they do need to go to the law, they're already on the path. So the guidance that we give them through this parliament, in that sense, becomes extremely important, and it's incumbent on us to come to a sensible agreement on that. This cannot be a matter of partisan divide. We don't want to be inserting our fight into the concerns that might sit within a family. They've got enough to deal with. We need to get this right, we need to do it cooperatively, and we need to work together to ensure that actions that occur are done appropriately. We should listen to the professionals who are providing us with advice on that. The court considering the benefits of meaningful relationships therefore becomes very important. If the Law Council of Australia expresses this as a concern, I think we should listen.

Likewise, arrangements that promote safety should be considered as a part of the process. As we listen to the children, we should be prepared to provide some guidance to families about the children's maturity, level of understanding and capacity to make appropriate decisions. There are a whole series of factors there that can be appropriately looked at and considered, such as whether a parent has been engaged in parenting in the past, including their obligations to financially support the child.

We as a coalition are extremely concerned about provisions of the bill that significantly cut the objects and principles of the parenting framework in the act.

As I said, families look to the legislation for guidance. They are not going to look back to a previous piece of legislation because of a referral in the act or an explanatory memorandum; they're going to look at what is in the law, so what we consider as a part of that is really important. We need to ensure that the appropriate levels of guidance to support families in their decision-making are considered in the act. We should look at it carefully and clearly. But those things that are in those provisions now that remain relevant should stay in the act so that families can find them easily, so they can look to them. Let's remember, people are often quite emotional in these circumstances. It's a difficult time, and the best possible guidance to them that we can provide is what we should be doing. They need to be found easily, where people can find them, where people can read them so that they can apply them.

One of the more important elements of the 2003 changes was the presumption of shared responsibility. Clearly, there have been some issues with that. Clearly, there have been some ways that it's been interpreted. But ensuring that parents take the appropriate level of responsibility in raising their children in the various ways that might apply is an extremely important principle. Rather than removing that presumption or that element of the act—because it was quite transformational when it came into effect—if it requires clarification, then that's what we should do. We shouldn't take it away; we should clarify it appropriately because, as I've said before, people look to the act.

Let's not forget that this provision was put into the act in a bipartisan way in the best possible way that it could be for this type of legislation, which I've said a number of times goes to the absolute heart of our community—to our families. In whatever form you might see your family, and I don't presume to put any overlay on that because the world has so changed in the last 20 years, if there's going to be a separation, our sincerest responsibility is to work closely together to provide the best possible guidance to people in our communities who are having to deal with this. It's a difficult time in their lives and it can define people for a long time, but our role is to ensure that we do our best possible job. We retain the elements that we know are of value and if we need to improve parts of the legislation—the definitions or the guidance—that's what we should do. We shouldn't be taking things out wholesale, particularly things that were important parts of previous reforms for very, very good reason. I thank colleagues for their indulgence during my presentation.