Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023. Family breakups are one of the biggest reasons why men commit suicide and why they fall into depression. I know that fathers need their children and children need their fathers, and mothers need their children and children need their mothers. It's very important that we get family law as protective as we can. It's always a question, when it comes to these issues, though, of dealing with each case as it comes. If you're a judge in the family law courts, I can't imagine it would be an easy job; there must be many situations where it gets very difficult to decide the rights of the parents, the separated parents, the mother, father and the children. But, ultimately, we must always have the children's interests at heart first. But I think it's also important that, when we make changes or do anything, we make sure that both parents are given equal consideration.

That is why I have chosen to speak on this bill. I am concerned that this bill is going to repeal the presumption of shared parental responsibility. My understanding of shared parental responsibility is that it doesn't automatically guarantee that parents get fifty-fifty time with their children, and it has a carveout in the cases where there is violence involved—so if the father or the mother is violent, that presumption is quickly removed so that the child isn't exposed to anything that could be dangerous. Where it's key is when it comes to decision-making in regard to what happens with the child, and there are many circumstances whereby both parents—and I believe this—should have input in the decisions being made about the child's future.

Something I've encountered recently in the last 18 months, to do with the COVID vaccines, is that I was contacted by an enormous number of parents who had separated, and one parent wanted their child vaccinated and the other parent didn't want their child vaccinated. There obviously wasn't much I could do about it, but it was just one example whereby parents had different views as to what was in the best interests of the child. How you work these things out can't be easy, but we need to make sure that both parents have a say in those types of arrangements.

The other thing that I'm concerned about with this bill is the removal of the word 'meaningful' in the sense that a child should have a meaningful relationship with their parent. The existing act says that we should try and ensure that a child has a meaningful relationship with their parent. The word 'meaningful' is being removed. I don't really know why you'd need to remove the word 'meaningful'. With all these things, when you get into a court of law—I studied a master's of tax law, and you'd be amazed at the mental gymnastics, even in something as simple as tax and numbers, and how they can manipulate words to have different meanings. I think we should keep that word 'meaningful' in the Family Law Act because it is important that a child has a meaningful relationship with both parents, to the maximum extent possible. The cynic in me is fearful that taking this word out of the act may work against a certain parent. It may be used against a certain parent, and it may become harder for that parent to justify getting time with the child.

The other thing is: while I think that it is important that the child has a say in how much time they spend with the parents, ultimately we need to make sure that the provision to give greater power to the child to decide who they spend time with isn't used by one parent against another parent. I know fathers, in particular, who have lost their children, and when they lose their children they lose their purpose in life. It's a very important issue. I've had a great, wonderful life, but, as I've gotten older, nothing gives me a greater sense of purpose than being a father and spending time with my children.

I would ask Labor to reconsider some of these amendments. I'm not sure that they're in the best interests of the entire family outfit, whether it's together or separated. Reconsider these amendments.