Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

In terms of that answer, what I read out both in my first question and in my second question related to the changes to the objects and principles of the parenting framework. I set out what the objects and principles are, as currently drafted, and asked you a number of questions, to which you responded. The changes, however—in the context of talking through this issue with various people—would completely remove what are considered to be the very clear objects of the parenting framework. In effect, what's been done completely removes them—so they're now gone—and then replaces them with a new provision which says that the objects of the parenting framework are 'to ensure that the best interests of children are met, including by ensuring their safety' and to implement the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In describing what our parenting framework tries to achieve, the only things you specifically name are safety and a UN convention. What therefore appears to be lacking—or, should I say, the feedback is that it is lacking—is anything about the benefits of a meaningful parent-child relationship and anything about the responsibilities and benefits of parenting. The issue that then arises is that by replacing those objects your government is sending a very clear message that the object of the parenting framework is no longer to ensure children get the benefit of both of their parents having meaningful involvement in their lives. The message that has been conveyed to me is that, in family law matters, the bill's implementation of a UN convention that most Australians have never read is more important for a child than proper parenting and a meaningful relationship with both parents. In terms of the changed objects, what do you say to the very many Australians who think that those issues I have read out are important and are now missing in the act?