Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Hanson. We will be opposing your amendment. The proposed amendment does not address the misunderstanding associated with the terminology, that equal shared parental responsibility means equal time rather than relating to joint decision-making on major long-term issues. Further, this amendment does not address the fact that the evidence shows that the presumption is currently regularly applied in the presence of safety concerns, despite the legislation specifying it should not apply in cases of abuse of a child or family violence. The retention of any presumption detracts from the focus of the best interests of the child.

In terms of some of the other broader points you made, Senator Hanson, I disagree with a lot of it and I don't think it did your arguments any favours to go to some of the culture wars, as you did. The intention of these amendments is not to see less custody for fathers. What is changing is a formulaic reasoning process which has contributed to a misconception that parents are entitled to equal time with a child rather than focusing on what is in the child's best interest. Where it is in the child's best interest, the outcome will be that both parents will be making decisions jointly and in equal time or a substantial and significant time arrangement. For a small number of children, it will be in their best interests that one parent will be making decisions and that there is with the other parent. These reforms will ensure that the best interests of the individual child are considered.