Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Hansard source

N (—) (): I rise to speak to the Family Law Amendment Bill. The legislation gives effect to several recommendations I have made as Deputy Chair of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System, established after I lobbied then prime minister Malcolm Turnbull.

There is broad support for some of the changes contained in the legislation, and I will refer to this later. Some of them are changes I have been advocating on the select committee and in public for many years. No-one could argue against focusing on the best interests of children involved in family law cases. However, by removing the presumption of shared parental responsibility as a factor that must be considered in deciding custody arrangements, this legislation could well have the opposite effect.

This presumption has never been about equal time in child custody arrangements. It doesn't matter that it may have created this perception. The court and the legal profession have a duty to explain it and make sure that parents seeking resolutions in or outside of court do not labour under this misunderstanding. If they have not, then the failure is theirs and not that of the legislation. The presumption has always been about recognising the truth that when you are responsible for bringing a child into the world with someone else, you share equal responsibility for the child's care. This shouldn't be a controversial principle. Not if you think people should take responsibility for their actions, at any rate.

The introduction of the shared parental responsibility presumption was almost unanimously supported by this parliament in 2006. The Gillard Labor government kept the presumption in place when it modified the legislation in 2011. In 2020 Labor in opposition tried to remove it and failed. Today they're seeking to remove it again, despite expert warnings they should retain it. Former Family Court judge Professor Richard Chisholm warned the abolition of the presumption should not inadvertently bring Australia back to a time when mothers were granted primacy in court battles. He also warned that removing the presumption would bring back the old 80-20 model that underpinned an assumption that mothers would be responsible for the bulk of childcaring duties following a relationship breakdown. He recommended the legislation should stress the importance of continued involvement of both parents. I quote: 'It is important for the majority of children to continue the involvement of both parents after family separation. It is right that the legislation should stress this because it seems it was once assumed that it is enough for children to have one involved parent, with the other, typically the father, providing financial support and weekend entertainment.'

In his submission on the exposure draft of this bill, Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of Queensland Patrick Parkinson AM said the government had not made any reasonable case for what he called 'radical changes to the philosophy of part 7 of the act'. He warned of increased litigation, increased difficulty in resolving disputes and increased costs for parents and courts. Professor Parkinson noted these changes would unsettle the law and represented a fundamental change to the values that are expressed to underlie the family law system. He noted, 'An evaluation of the 2006 family law reforms by the Australian Institute of Family Studies found the philosophy of shared parental responsibility is overwhelmingly supported by parents, the legal system, professionals and service professionals.' For him, and for me, the most alarming aspect of the bill is the removal of this philosophy. The bill effectively deletes it, removing the need to ensure that children have the benefit of both their parents having meaningful involvement in their lives to the maximum extent consistent with the child's best interests; that children have the right to know and be cared for by both their parents; that children have a right to, on a regular basis, spend time with and communicate with both their parents and other people significant to their care, welfare and development, particularly grandparents; that parents should jointly share duties and responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children; and that parents should agree about the future parenting of their children.

I think it's arguable that this legislation contravenes the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Australia signed and ratified in 1990. Article 7 of the convention says:

The child shall … have … as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

Article 9 says:

States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child's best interests.

Article 18 says:

States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child.

I think family lawyers might want to brush up on their constitutional law and fit parents unduly denied access to their children might want to think about approaching the High Court to challenge the validity of this legislation, and I have heard that parents are considering taking out a class action with regard to this.

Evidence presented to the joint select committee included an analysis compiled by the North Dakota and Oregon state universities that concluded that fathers really do matter. It supported the importance of fathers being able to connect with their children through shared activities. It confirmed that fathers play an important role in the lives of children and the need for positive connections contributing to a child's wellbeing. It analysed data which showed that, where there were positive connections and communication with fathers, children were much less likely to have problems later in life, and it affirmed the need for courts to consider the positive contributions fathers can make to their children's lives. I note the bill still requires courts to consider the benefit to children of maintaining a relationship with both parents but, importantly, removes the term 'meaningful' as a descriptor of the relationship. Why? It's because the Albanese government has adopted the broken philosophy promoted by women's advocacy and domestic violence groups that children are only safe from violence in the care of their mothers. This denies evidence that women are more likely to commit violence against their children than fathers. There have been several high-profile cases in Australia documenting this fact. It denies evidence that 25 per cent of reported domestic violence is committed by women. They're effectively saying that shared parental responsibility makes it easier for violent men to insist on a post-separation parenting role. As Professor Parkinson points out, however, this is not supported by the evidence. In fact, the AIFS study found that many more fathers than mothers were concerned for their children's safety in shared parenting arrangements. This was borne out in evidence provided to the joint select committee inquiry into the family law system. Ultimately, the evidence was clear: the system is already heavily biased against fathers. The removal of shared parental responsibility increases the possibility of entrenching this bias.

The demonisation of Australian men is unjustified and needs to stop. Men are already overrepresented in homelessness, in jobs with high risk to safety, as victims of violent crimes and, tragically, in suicides. Many of these studies are associated with unfair and unjust family law outcomes from a system biased against fathers. The removal of shared parental responsibility carries a strong risk of even more unjust outcomes.

In principle I support some other parts of this bill. In the joint select committee inquiry I argued for, and I now support in particular, the emphasis on the wishes of the child and the requirement that independent children's lawyers, or ICLs, be required to learn and advocate the child's wishes. I have been advocating for many years that the child's wishes, where possible, be objectively considered by the courts. However, to do this in such a way that the wishes of children as young as five are objectively presented to the court will require specialist training for ICLs.

I also support the mechanism aimed at preventing the manipulation of the family law system—what this bill considers to be harmful proceedings. This is also something I've been advocating for many years—preventing people from using the system to attack or punish an ex-partner during acrimonious separations. However, it must be fairly and equally applied to both mothers and fathers. My fear is that it won't be fairly applied. Advocates for these changes—and I note Senator Rice's telling contribution to this debate—focus only on the rights of women and children and ignore the rights of men. That is the fear of good fathers mired in the family law system: unfair outcomes for them based on the violent behaviour of a few. A lot of women also provided evidence of bias against them in the system, but in my opinion it is mainly men who are denied fair access to see or spend time with their children.

There was clear evidence presented to the joint select committee that many mothers made unfounded or deliberately false allegations of violence against fathers. Ninety per cent of parents alleging child sexual abuse in contested hearings from 2012 until 2019 were mothers. In 90 per cent of these hearings, the judge found no risk of sexual harm to the child or children—90 per cent. In 25 per cent of these cases, the allegations were found to be deliberately misleading. In another 46 per cent of these cases, the allegations were mistaken. In 88 per cent of these cases, the allegations were not believed by the judge. In 62 per cent of these cases, the judge awarded shared parental responsibility or sole responsibility to the parent against whom the allegations were made. In 66 per cent of these cases, orders were made increasing parenting time with the parent against whom the allegations were made. This was confirmed by former Family Court judge Justice David Collier, who said allegations of child sexual abuse are being increasingly invented by mothers to stop fathers from seeing their children. He said:

I'm satisfied that a number of people who have appeared before me have known that it is one of the ways of completely shutting husbands out of the child's life.

In principle, I also welcome the government's support for extending the Lighthouse Project, but I am disappointed that the sensible changes I have proposed to the child support system were not reflected in these reforms. As Professor Parkinson has noted, the current system provides perverse incentives for primary caregivers to resist children spending more time with the other parent to avoid a reduction in the child support obligation. My recommendations would remove this incentive and make the system fairer and simpler, and, for the record, I'll list them: ensure parents aren't left with incomes below $27,000 per annum; assess salaries on a 38-hour working week; base child support on the number of children at the time of separation, not on additional children to other partners; assess residential costs individually and include family tax benefit in assessing incomes; exclude lump sums such as WorkCover, TPI or superannuation payments in assessing incomes; and have child support payments paid to a separate child support account, subject to scrutiny by Services Australia to ensure all child support is going to support the children.

Since being elected I've always fought for the law to treat Australians fairly and equally, regardless of gender, race, religion or other identities. This has been my motivation for working to reform Australia's broken family law system. It was my hope that the joint select committee inquiry would generate the evidence to back such reforms. The inquiry certainly achieved that, but I didn't count on the perverse motivations of others on the committee to drive the system into potentially greater conflict and unfairness. Families experiencing the system, both now and in the future, have my profound sympathies, because the chance of genuine reform has been squandered.

I will never stop fighting for fairness and for the best outcomes for children and families in the Australian family law system. I will be moving amendments to this bill—on domestic violence matters requiring proof, not just allegations, and on children's lawyers requiring further training—and I would like to see a sliding scale or a cap on legal costs. Too many parents out there are suffering because of this. This is a backward step, as I've said. It will just hurt those fathers who are already hurting from not being able to see their children, for no reason whatsoever. You're going to keep people going through the court system. Lawyers are going to make a lot of money out of this. I feel sorry for the children. You're not considering the children at all. You're a selfish bunch.