Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the Senate for the opportunity to continue to speak to this bill. It's an important bill for me to speak to for a number of reasons. I was speaking earlier about the inquiry of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which I chair, into this bill. When I was previously speaking about this bill I referred, in particular, to evidence given to the committee by victims-survivors of family violence. They made some really powerful contributions to the inquiry. We also heard from experts from across the field of law—of family law in particular—and also from different groups with different views on this bill. But overwhelmingly the expert advice and evidence has supported the measures in this bill, and I want to bring that to the Senate's attention tonight.

One of the main characteristics of this bill and one of the main things that we will be talking about and, I assume, debating—because it seems like this is up for debate, which is disappointing—is the repealing of a presumption written into legislation that has caused unnecessary and sometimes harmful misunderstanding, and that's the equal shared parental responsibility presumption that was inserted into the Family Law Act by the Howard government. The reason we need to deal with this language and the way that this language is dealt with in the bill is really multifaceted, and I'd just encourage those senators who are seeking to contribute on this bill to really seek to understand how the language in this bill affects the way that people approach family law matters, even when they're not being dealt with in the court.

Many parents engaged in the family law process told us that there is a mistaken understanding that this presumption means that each parent will automatically have equal parenting time. Shared responsibility is, of course, important for children and parents. However, shared time might not always be in the best interests of the children, and of course it can never be in the case of family violence. This has never been the law, but the wording of the sections has led to significant confusion and, in some cases, agreements to unsafe parenting arrangements. Removal of these provisions will ensure everyone understands that the children's needs, rather than the parents', are really the focus of the act and the contribution that this amendment will make to it.

It's important for me to make this point. This amendment clarifies the intention of the law. It does not undermine the Family Law Act's recognition of the importance of children maintaining a relationship with both of their parents where it is safe to do so. Anyone who comes into this place and argues otherwise either is misinterpreting the amendment or really should go back and read it again. I would hate to think that anyone arguing against this change is doing so in a malicious way without understanding what is being asked of us here in the Senate.

We are also proposing to make amendments that will better align our domestic legislation with obligations under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Currently, Australian family law imposes a higher threshold for consideration of a child's objection to a return order. We heard some really horrific stories during the inquiry that really bring home the importance of this change. Under the proposed changes, a court may refuse to return a child if that child objects to being returned and is of an age and maturity where it is appropriate to take account of their views.

Of course, there's a range of minor technical changes that will complement these reforms to build a better and more streamlined family law system. Our legislation means that courts deciding parenting arrangements will be doing so within a more streamlined framework. This will be simpler for parents to understand and will reduce the court's costs and time. It will provide courts with a greater power to protect parties and children from the harmful effects of protracted and adversarial litigation which we have heard borne out so many times when it comes to matters dealing with family violence. Only three per cent of families have their parenting arrangements settled by the Family Court. With such small numbers using these frameworks, previous governments may have said that this change wasn't worth it. But, while 97 per cent of families settle arrangements outside of the court system, they're still guided by the law and the standards that we set here in this place. The law here sets a standard for the settlements and for the way that parents approach separations and custody arrangements.

I know that an unavoidable consequence of parental separation is heartache at best and more lasting trauma at worst. For kids, it's very disruptive and uncertain. Often everything that has formed their world view to this point changes—their living arrangements, how their parents relate to each other and other people, quality time with their caregivers, their understanding of conflict resolution, and their sense of safety and routine. This is really formative stuff for kids. This uncertainty can't be avoided, but we can make sure that laws that help bring an end to this period of time are in the best shape possible. Whether it is a mediatory framework to guide parents reaching an agreement between themselves or a more streamlined set of principles upon which judges and counsels can rely, we owe it to the kids to get this right, particularly those in situations of family and domestic violence. I note that consultation on the next tranche of reforms is imminent, and I look forward to engaging in that process.

I refer all senators back to the evidence given by Ms Michelle Baumann and Ms Charisse Hay, and I again repeat what Ms Hay said:

When the decision-makers remain ignorant to the abusive dynamics that place women and children in ongoing danger, the family law system fails to act in the best interests of the child.

Many of these changes seek to keep those kids safer, to make sure that our family law system is setting a standard we can rely on and build on to make sure that all children's interests are considered in the court system. That's what these changes seek to do, and anyone suggesting otherwise has not engaged with the content of this bill or the experts that say that that is what the bill does.