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

I rise to make a contribution in support of the Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 and the associated bill, and I do so in my capacity as Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. I joined with my colleagues to inquire into and report to the Senate on this legislation.

Can I say from the outset that we know that people who've experienced the family law system hold deeply felt beliefs which are often based on a very sensitive personal experience. I have my own lived experience with the content of this bill, but today I'll be speaking based on the wealth of evidence of experts. I acknowledge my committee colleagues who engaged in this inquiry with a compassionate and constructive approach. I acknowledge Senator Scarr and Senator Waters, who are in the chamber today. It is my hope that all senators can follow that lead through this debate on the issues that mean so much to so many. I also want to acknowledge the Attorney-General, who engaged with the inquiry in good faith and was receptive to recommendations, some of which have made their way into the package of legislation, and that is a very good thing. A range of stakeholders from across the family law system engaged constructively in this approach, and I appreciate their time and expertise after what I know has been a very long road to reform.

Overwhelming evidence supports these changes. Lived experience from victims-survivors supports these changes. It's important for me to take a moment here and zoom out to the broader work of the Albanese Labor government on eradicating family and domestic violence. We know that these two things are linked. At the inquiry that we held, two victims-survivors gave evidence during the day, and I want to begin my contribution by reading out what they had to say about this bill. It's really important, I think, that we start this debate acknowledging the words of these two wonderful women. Ms Michelle Baumann said this at the inquiry:

As a mother who has experienced family violence for years and tried to have the Family Court recognise the impacts of this, the biggest part of my journey relates to my ability to protect my children and give them a sense of safety, wherever they are, and agency over their living arrangements, which is a key part of their safety. I am very interested in talking with you about issues of child safety and family violence, and the critical importance of children's agency in these circumstances.

I fully support the removal of the presumption of shared care and responsibility. As a victim-survivor of family violence, I left my abusive partner more than eight years ago and have endured unrelenting, unabated coercive control ever since, largely through the power and control that our Family Court orders have afforded him.

We have equal shared care and responsibility, with our children shifting between our households every week. The children are sent to the abuse that I escaped from. The impacts on them are devastating and lasting.

Ms Charisse Hay also gave evidence at the inquiry. We are going to have a debate today about what the best interests of the child means, and this is what Ms Hay had to say from her experience:

Perhaps the question we need to ask is this: if a parent fails to act in the best interests of their child, is it in a child's best interest to be forced to spend time with them? Through my lived experiences, I learnt that reporting family violence risked negative judgement and criticism at best and counter-allegations of parental alienation at worst. Women and children are silenced and forced to endure ongoing and escalating violence without protection or escape, sometimes for decades post-separation. I left my abuser 13 years ago and I'm still being financially, emotionally and psychologically abused. I am now a registered psychologist treating other families and adult children who have been through the same.

This is what I want every senator who speaks on this bill to go back and read and even watch—that is, when Ms Hay says this:

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.

I wanted to start my contribution with those powerful words from two women who were representative of many people in the family law system who are also facing family violence, because at the inquiry the Women's Legal Service said it best when they said:

We are hopeful that for our clients, who are among the most marginalised and disadvantaged in the community, these changes will mean their experience through the family law system will lead to safer outcomes for children and parents/carers and it will be less confusing and traumatic.

This is what we are talking about today—long overdue reforms to minimise harm and trauma of some of our most vulnerable people.

Our family law system has been subject to more than two dozen inquiries in the past decade, including a comprehensive examination from the Australian Law Reform Commission. Through repeated inquiries and subsequent reports, a clear picture of the challenges has emerged. It is now broadly agreed by experts and advocates in this space that legislation is overly complex and confusing. This confusion results in community misperceptions about the law and in some cases unnecessary protracted litigation.

It is critical that our family law system places the best interests of children at the centre of its operation. These reforms go some way towards that goal. These amendments underscore the government's commitment to making the family law system safer, simpler to engage with and fairer for Australian families. Our amendments are a first step in the government addressing a backlog of recommendations from countless inquiries and reviews never progressed by the previous government. It is not an accident that the first tranche of reforms is one that elevates children's best interests to where they should be—the central concern of this legislation and the central concern of the family law system.

The bill itself, including government amendments to it, will make several changes to the existing family law legislation. These changes will clarify and simplify sections of the act that have consistently led to more protracted, costly and adversarial experiences for families in the court system.

The bill will clarify the needlessly confusing framework currently used for making decisions about parenting arrangements. Our changes will make it clear that the best interests of children are the priority. This amendment simplifies the list of best-interest factors that must be considered by the court when making determinations in family law matters.

During the inquiry into this bill, we heard from advocates who told us that this change will assist them in communicating with their clients on how to determine arrangements that serve the best interests of children. This amendment will ensure that both parents making post-separation arrangements and the court officials making determinations about them will have a straightforward definition of 'best-interest factors'. It will mean all parties can remain focused on the best interests of affected children.

This bill will also ensure the definitions of 'best interests' accommodate the connection to culture and the ways in which family is understood across First Nations communities. We know, because advocates have told us, that connection to community is central to the wellbeing of First Nations kids. The bill makes it clear that the best-interests factors recognise the importance of First Nations children's right to participate in and enjoy their culture. The amendment will also ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kinship groups are appropriately recognised within definitions of 'member of the family' and 'relative' in the Family Law Act.