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

That's even more confusing than when we first started out, and that's the whole point. 'The court must consider any views expressed by the child.' I think we both agree that is exactly the wording of section 60CC(2)(b). The point I'm making—and this is made in good faith, trying to make better what I believe is just bad drafting; that's all it is—is that 'must' means they must consider any views expressed by the child. Unfortunately—and this is where it goes to our amendment—there's nothing in the drafting proposed by the government that requires a court to take into account the child's maturity, level of understanding or any other factors in assessing the weight it should give to the child's view. We've agreed that there's not. The provision you just quoted, section 60CC(2)(b), does not expressly give the court any discretion. As I said, I'm doing this in good faith. If it is bad drafting, this is the reason we've put forward the amendment. In your evidence yesterday, you agreed that there would be unrepresented litigants coming before the court. To an unrepresented litigant reading the law, there's no express indication there, or even on the face of the provision, that there should be some attempt to assess or give weight to the child's views, is there?