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

The parenting provisions in the Family Law Act are meant to establish a framework that leads to decisions being made in the best interests of the child. It follows that one of the most important things the act can then do in relation to parenting is set out the factors that determine what is in the best interests of the child. As of now, the act reads as follows:

(2) The primary considerations are:

(a) the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child's parents; and

(b) the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.

As we now know, the changes that the Labor government is pursuing and that are in this piece of legislation entirely remove the reference to a meaningful relationship and they only require a consideration of the benefit of being able to have 'a relationship'. Many have submitted—and I would hope that you can see, in terms of my articulation—the problem. What has again been presented by way of feedback after feedback is that a supervised visit with a child for 30 minutes once a month might well be, to quote what the act will say, 'a relationship', but it could certainly be argued that it's not a meaningful relationship. So, again, why did the government remove reference to the benefits of meaningful relationship with children?