Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2006. Labor welcomes the introduction of this bill into the parliament and supports the overwhelming majority of the provisions in it. Family law is not and should not be a political battle between the Liberal and Labor parties, or the minor parties, for that matter, or a tug of war between mums and dads. Family law is about providing for and protecting children. It is children’s interests that we are tasked to take care of when debating this bill. We must not forget that the children are the very reason—really, the sole reason—for the parliament’s role in intervening at all in this tricky area of family relationships. It is easy to see how the media and certain lobby groups are attracted to sensational battle-of-the-sexes rhetoric, but it is a trap politicians should avoid.

Family law is about something much more important than mothers’ or fathers’ rights; it is about children. Given this, we should be more concerned about parents’ responsibilities than parents’ rights because this is what will benefit the children. In the other place my colleague the member for Gellibrand stated Labor’s position on family law in detail. We support this bill for reasons I will explain. However, we do have serious concerns about the effect of some of the changes, especially their effect on those cases involving family violence. Accordingly, I will be moving amendments when we come to the committee stage, which may be as early as tomorrow. These will address our four most important concerns about the bill: the new definition of violence, the cooling-off period for parenting plans, costs for false allegations and the use of the word ‘equal’ rather than ‘joint’ to describe shared parenting responsibility.

Those who have followed this debate closely will note that these are only some of the amendments that Labor moved in the House. This is not because Labor is no longer committed to all those amendments; we are—and if the government were to have a change of heart, we would gladly bring them back here—but it is clear that the government has arrogantly refused to give many of those commonsense amendments the consideration they deserve. At this point, therefore, we want to focus attention on these four critical issues, issues that go to the heart of making the family law system fair, accessible and able to meet the needs of those children and parents who have suffered the tragedy of family violence.

Let me explain why Labor supports this bill. We support the measures that encourage shared parenting. It is a positive development that more parents, mums and dads, realise the value of staying in active contact with their children after separation. In particular the last decade has seen a great change in the number of fathers wanting to play a significant role in the care of their children. It is appropriate that the law recognises that patterns of parenting are in fact changing. We also support the measures that aim to simplify court processes involving children and make them less adversarial. This picks up on the ideas that are being trialled in the Sydney and Parramatta registries of the Family Court. We note that the final assessment of that trial has not yet been completed. We do hope that the government will commit to reviewing these changes, if necessary, in the light of that report when it comes down.

Labor supports changes that will promote family dispute resolution outside the courtroom. It has the potential to save a lot of time, money and frustration. This bill is part of a package which includes a significant new government contribution to the funding of family relationship services. This includes $200 million towards increased funding of services under the existing family relationship services program. Labor does enthusiastically welcome this new money. Indeed, we have been arguing for some time that these services have been sorely neglected by the Howard government. We also welcome the plan to establish a network of 65 family relationship centres. Well managed and properly resourced, this network could provide an invaluable addition to the family law system: a shopfront and entry point for advice, referral, counselling and mediation services. But being well managed is the key, and we will be closely watching these services to make sure they are—an issue I will return to shortly.

It is clear that many of these good ideas in this bill are very much supported by Labor. This is no surprise, because many of them came out of the bipartisan work of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, which produced the important Every picture tells a story report. Labor is proud of the contribution that our colleagues made in that report. Further, a number of aspects of this bill we are debating today come from a later review conducted by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which scrutinised an earlier exposure draft of this bill. I will also come to that later in a number of recommendations made by the committee. Finally, the bill has been considered, albeit hurriedly, by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. That committee has also made some sensible suggestions.

At this point it should be noted that this bill includes two important provisions that originated from the member for Gellibrand in the dissenting report from the House’s legal and constitutional committee review of the exposure draft. These provisions will temper the rights focus of the earlier draft bill with two new, important responsibilities for parents. Section 60CC, which outlines the best interests of the child test, will now require the court to consider the extent to which each parent has taken up opportunities to spend time and communicate with the child, be involved in major life decisions and pay maintenance. Section 70NCA will allow costs to be awarded against parents who make repeated nuisance claims that the other parent has breached parenting orders. Yes, they have the right to complain, but now they also have a responsibility not to abuse that right.

Those sections I mentioned before the break are tremendously important new provisions which we believe should help make sure the balance of the Family Law Act is right. Our concern was that if we focus too much on rights we risk turning a blind eye to irresponsibility. The law cannot promote rights without responsibilities. When you do so you run the risk that people will abuse their rights. While the vast majority of non-resident parents, as with the majority of resident parents, take their responsibilities seriously, the exposure draft would have rewarded those who do not. In the process it would have created huge problems in those situations where a non-resident parent is more concerned with controlling their ex-partner’s life than actually maintaining a meaningful involvement in their children’s lives. So these changes are important and are welcome.

I now turn to some of the concerns Labor have with this bill. Labor’s most significant concern is to make sure this package protects people from family violence. We believe there are parts of this bill that could be better worded to afford greater protection, and I will be moving amendments accordingly during the committee stage. Labor believe that the issue of family violence has to be taken seriously; it cannot be brushed aside just because it is too difficult. The first area for improvement of the bill involves recognising the way violence affects mediation and parenting plans. While resolutions of disputes outside court are to be encouraged, we must be sure that these resolutions are genuinely made in the best interests of children, which means they must be absolutely free of bullying, coercion and/or intimidation. If we are to make mediation compulsory and give new force to parenting plans agreed to without any professional or legal advice, we need new precautions to make sure violence and fear are not influencing agreements. Some of the Labor amendments go directly to these issues—for example, a cooling off period for parenting plans.

But one change proposed by the government could in fact make matters worse, and that is the change to the definition of family violence. Only last month the government announced an Australian Institute of Family Studies research project into family violence and family law, but before it gets results from this inquiry it wants to change the definition of violence, with next to no reasoning or basis for it. The bill before us would move from a subjective to an objective test of family violence—that is, it would now require a person to show that they had a ‘reasonable’ apprehension of violence.

This is an unsatisfactory approach. First, there is an implication that some forms of violence or threatening behaviour are acceptable as long as a ‘reasonable’ person would not feel afraid. This gets courts into the very tricky business of deciding what conduct would scare a ‘reasonable’ person. We should not put courts in this position. Parliament should be very clear that there is no such thing as acceptable violence. Second, this definition does not provide scope to consider the particular circumstances of the victim—for example, a person who has previously been exposed to violence may be more sensitive and fearful in circumstances where another person might not be. Third, an objective definition is not helpful where we are dealing with who should or should not attend mediation. When it comes to mediation, it does not matter whether or not one party is ‘reasonably’ fearful of the other. Even an unreasonable fear will affect the power balance between the parties. It is simply not fair for us to force people into mediation in those circumstances. At the very least, a subjective definition should apply for the purposes of the exception to compulsory mediation.

This bill does effectively introduce a new system of compulsory mediation, with some limited exceptions. Labor are happy to support this shift, as it could help that category of cases where a separating couple has not been able to reach agreement on their own but are not so entrenched in their attitudes and disagreements as to require final orders from a court. Indeed, we can recognise that court proceedings, because of their adversarial nature, can in themselves make reaching agreement even more difficult. In these cases, compulsory mediation before litigation could act as a useful circuit-breaker before a dispute escalates. However, compulsory mediation could carry serious consequences if it is not implemented in the right away.

In our view, compulsory mediation will require the following conditions. First, it must be accessible. We welcome the government’s promise of three hours of free funding in every case, but we want this in the legislation as a precondition for compulsory mediation. If the government changes its mind, if this becomes another of Mr John Howard’s ‘non-core’ promises, we cannot require people to attend mediation at their own expense. The second condition is that staff must be well trained. We all agree that cases involving family violence or entrenched conflict are not suitable for mediation and should be dealt with in the formal court setting. In practice, in order to get this right we need to be confident that the FRC staff can recognise the signs of violence and entrenched conflict and understand how to make appropriate referrals. If mediators do not do this, and try to force mediation in inappropriate circumstances, we may have some disastrous, even tragic, outcomes on our hands. Similarly, acknowledging the complex emotional context of family separation, FRC staff need to be adequately trained in dealing with violent situations when they arise in the course of mediation.

Next, the government must assure quality of services. Training staff is not enough—the government must also ensure that the quality of mediation services is to a consistently high standard. I have to say I am alarmed that the government’s operational framework document contains key performance indicators which seem to prioritise the quantity of parenting agreements reached rather than the quality of services provided. We need to make sure that the incentives for centres are right: too much focus on quantity could actually encourage staff to push people into agreements that are not sensible—or, in fact, appropriate—because they are rewarded on their churn rate. We are talking about dealing with complex family relationships here, not sausage factories, and Labor will be watching this aspect of this implementation very closely. It is a matter that the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs learned at their cost—that, in fact, quantity should not put aside quality outcomes.

Centres must not pursue ideological or religious agendas. These centres will be funded by government to provide services, not to promote their own agendas. We know that there are many views in the community on issues like relationships, divorce, parenting and so on. These are complex issues and our society benefits from hearing many points of view. But government funded relationship services should not be used as vehicles for this sort of advocacy or social engineering. The Attorney-General has to take personal responsibility to make sure that this, in fact, does not happen. And of course, lastly, centres must not discriminate. If centres are to be accessible to all people, the government must ensure that they do not discriminate on the grounds of gender, ethnicity, religion, disability or socioeconomic disadvantage.

At the end of the day, the implementation is the personal responsibility of the Attorney-General and his colleagues. On passage of this bill the opposition will continue—as it has done in other areas—to closely watch the FRC roll-out, and we expect the Attorney-General to be completely transparent about the process. We will make sure that he is held personally responsible for any failures.

As I have indicated, although we do have some significant amendments that will improve the bill, Labor supports the key principles involved in this package of family law reforms. There is bipartisan agreement on the important issues: encouraging shared parenting responsibility, encouraging non-litigious resolution of disputes, allowing more flexible and less formal court procedures and others. The amendments we propose will simply strengthen the family law system’s capacity to deal effectively with those cases where family violence is an issue. They do not undermine any of the fundamentals of the plan—indeed, most of them simply revert to the Attorney-General’s original plan in the exposure draft he produced. This is an important bill and Labor believes it will improve our family law system. Labor’s amendments will simply make it better and I urge senators to support our amendments and the bill itself.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I would like to address some specific concerns with the particulars of the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2006 as highlighted in the Greens’ and Democrats’ minority report to the committee’s findings on this issue. But I would also like to reflect on the wider debate on how parenting responsibilities are shared within Australian families—those who stay together, those who go through tough times and those who separate. Beyond the specific issues I have with the changes to family law and the changes to support services for families in crisis that we are considering, I have some wider concerns about how this debate is being conducted and the particular subset of issues that the government has chosen to focus on in this legislation.

I strongly support the direction of social change within Australia that has seen fathers playing, and seeking to play, a much more active and substantial role in the parenting of children than in decades gone by. I believe that we should do more to encourage and support genuine sharing of parenting roles and responsibilities within our society. I think that this social change reflects changing attitudes and expectations within our society, and we are seeing increasing numbers of young Australian men and women who are moving away from the traditional notion of the distant, authoritarian father towards notions of active and nurturing coparenting.

I believe that the government has an important role to play in supporting these developments—in supporting community education about positive parenting, in providing resources to help parents develop their parenting skills and in providing support services to help families in trouble find positive means of resolving their disputes. I also support government’s role in reforming family law to ensure that there is justice and fairness for all. To this end, I support improving family law in Australia.

At this point I think that I should point out that I am a coparent. I coparent my son through an equal, shared parenting arrangement and I have personal experience in the Family Court. I also have an ongoing commitment to the care of other children who have experienced significant trauma in their lives and lost their mother to domestic violence. I know the personal anguish and heartbreak that is associated with family break-up. I know first-hand what it is like to go through mediation, and I have some understanding and insight into what kids go through, and how difficult it is to deal with the life consequences of abuse.

I believe that when relationships break down and families separate, in the majority of cases, the best outcome for the family is one of shared parenting responsibility and as equal a sharing of parenting time as is possible and practical given family circumstances. However, I am concerned about those situations where there is a history of family violence or abuse, or other unforeseen complicating circumstances. Under these circumstances I believe that the safety and wellbeing of the child must be paramount and that a presumption of shared parenting time is not necessarily the best starting point.

Unfortunately, it is a fact of life that domestic violence and family violence are still present in our society. I believe that the government and community, men and women, have done a lot to foster exposure of this domestic violence and to progress its debate within our society. I am deeply concerned that some aspects of this legislation—and the debate that is going around it—have in fact regressed that understanding, and they need to deal with domestic violence in an open manner.

I would like to quote from the National Council of Single Mothers and Their Children in a submission they made to the hearings on this bill:

There is significant research to show that domestic violence and child abuse are very real issues for many women and children, and that separation from an abusive partner can be the most dangerous time for women and children. The proposed reforms not only do not address how the family law system will be improved to protect women and children from ongoing violence and abuse following separation, but in fact create further barriers to women and children achieving safety. The proposed changes take a punitive approach towards women in their attempts to escape domestic violence and child abuse.

I am particularly concerned about the debate around the issues of shared parenting responsibility and the changes proposed by the government to family law. I am concerned they have focused very narrowly on dysfunctional, post separation families and totally ignored the wider issues of how we encourage and support intact families to help them more effectively deal with relationship problems and separated families who are seeking constructive solutions to shared parenting. Measures to improve shared parenting in intact families could help reduce the stress and conflict that lead to family breakdown. The government could make a real difference to the pressures and stresses on modern families that contribute to failing relationships by making some positive changes to help families: by increasing the accessibility and affordability of child care, by changing the work environment to make it more family friendly and by improving access to education and support services for family and relationship skills.

Unfortunately, we have seen a whole wave of legislation in industrial relations and social services, such as Welfare to Work, a combination of which I believe makes it harder for Australian families to balance work and family commitments. There were also changes to tax law that make it economically more difficult to have shared parenting responsibilities, providing tax incentives that only apply if one parent leaves work and do not apply if both parents try to work part time. We have seen changes to industrial relations that make it harder for parents to set aside family time, creating a more flexible workforce where employers can unilaterally set work hours rather than encouraging more flexible workplaces. We have seen changes to Welfare to Work that effectively force many single mothers back into the workforce at a minimum wage without what we consider to be adequate provisions to ensure the care and wellbeing of their children. Those changes put more pressure on parents and make it more difficult for them to share their parenting responsibilities. They will arguably create more work for the courts and relationships counsellors, not less. Some may argue that I am trying to make yet another political point. I am not; I am merely pointing out that these are the issues that families are dealing with every day of their lives.

The initial idea behind increasing the focus on mediation and alternative dispute resolution was a very good one. There was a real possibility for the new family relationship centres to be an effective preventative strategy to reduce the amount of family break-up. Unfortunately, with the focus of this legislation on compulsory mediation, which I will touch on shortly, as a pre-court requirement for families that are already effectively separated, it seems that this opportunity will be lost. The family relationship centres will be swamped with difficult and intractable cases in which there is little way to go forward. It is quite likely that that will make them less pleasant and scarier places for those genuinely seeking relationship support services. It is likely to be increasingly hard to find an appointment slot for voluntary counselling or mediation when there are so many others who are required to attend.

It is also unfortunate that there has been what I believe to be skewed references to the outcomes of the Family Court. We need to bear in mind that it is the extremely difficult cases that end up in the Family Court, so it is hardly surprising that the so-called requirement pressed by some sectors of our community for always having a fifty-fifty outcome is unlikely to be reached, when these cases are the most difficult and heart-rending cases that have to be dealt with in family law. I believe that the principle by which we need to look at family law is the best interests of the child. This must remain our No. 1 priority. The system must ensure the safety of children and women from abuse and violence. We must focus on the rights of the child and the responsibility of the parents. Prevention and support is better than mediation, which is, of course, better than court. Shared parenting is a two-way street.

I will now deal with some of the aspects of the bill that we have particular concerns with. We are concerned, although there has been a move to equal shared responsibility from a presumption of equal time, that this still creates a situation in which the rights of the parents to equal time or substantial and significant time are put ahead of the child’s best interests. As the Women’s Legal Services Australia points out, this leads to a:

... pro-contact culture that promotes the right to contact over safety—

which—

... undermines the child’s best interests in that it fails to properly prioritise the adverse effects on children of being exposed to abuse.

Provisions which require consideration of specific types of parenting arrangements, whether they call for equal or substantially shared time, necessarily direct attention away from a free and open consideration of what arrangements may be in the best interests of the child in any specific case. That is why the Greens believe that a presumption of equal shared responsibility should not be introduced and that each case should be considered on its own merits. We prefer the use of the phrase ‘joint shared responsibility’. We are concerned that the two-tiered approach of having primary and additional considerations when determining the best interests of the child does not consider the best interests of the child. The Greens support the retention of the current structure of the act. We are concerned that the child’s views will be relegated to the list of additional considerations, effectively putting the parent’s desire for access ahead of the child’s need for security.

When there is a history of family violence or abuse, the two primary considerations in this section of the legislation, those of the child having a meaningful relationship with both parents and of protecting the child from harm, effectively cancel each other out, as it is impossible to maintain a meaningful relationship with an abusive parent and still protect the child from harm. I believe that the term ‘meaningful relationship’ needs to be clearly defined in the legislation to make it clear what a meaningful relationship is—that is, one where a child has not been exposed to or put at risk of violence, abuse or neglect. Without this being done, a parent can be put into an untenable situation of being required to facilitate an unsafe relationship.

This is of particular concern because the changes proposed to the definition of ‘family violence’ and the costs of false allegations create a situation in which the level of unreported family violence is likely to increase substantially. On the issue of the definition of ‘family violence’ and the costs of false allegations, significant concerns have been raised in committee hearings about the proposed changes to the definition of ‘family violence’. The Family Issues Committee of the Law Society of New South Wales submitted:

Family violence is complex. In all but the simple cases family violence is not just an action, it is a course of actions. It is not just an event, it is a progression of events. Family violence often follows a complex cycle. Therefore, to treat family violence in a mono-dimensional manner in legislation is to treat family violence in an extremely simplistic manner, which is potentially dangerous and disempowering to victims and survivors of violence.

The Australian Greens are concerned that the introduction of the objective test as proposed will discourage victims from seeking the protection of the court where they lack the confidence that they have sufficient documentary or third party evidence to be able to substantiate their claim. This is raising the bar on the issue of family violence significantly in the absence of any evidence that there is a need to do so.

We support the chair’s recommendation that the government use the results of research by the Australian Institute of Family Studies into family violence, but we contend that the definition should remain the same as in the current act until the results of that research are known. Where the changes to the definition of ‘family violence’ are taken together with the provisions relating to costs orders for false allegations, it seems likely that this will create a situation in which there will be a significant increase in the amount of unreported family violence.

I would like to point out here that, in a paper by Michael Flood from the Australia Institute, there is a significant amount of evidence that in fact debunks the notion that mothers in particular—because the allegation is made mainly against mothers—make false allegations. There is an impressive array of research that finds that in fact that is not the case. Mothers do not use allegations of violence to prevent fathers from having access to their children, nor is there any evidence to suggest that, even if they did, that has any outcome on Family Court proceedings. I therefore support recommendation 7 of the committee’s report which is that the clause dealing with allegations of family violence and the costs associated with false allegations should be removed. As the National Council of Single Mothers and Their Children told the inquiry:

I want to particularly address the notion that raising allegations of violence and abuse gives you a tactical advantage in court processes. The reality is quite contrary to that; it is a disadvantage. Every day we hear women and grandparents being told by their lawyer not to raise domestic violence or child abuse issues because they will be seen as hostile and will risk losing residency.

I will move on to the issue of compulsory mediation. I do not want anybody to be under any illusions that we do not support mediation. We do support it. But we are extremely concerned about the use of compulsory mediation where there are cases of domestic violence. I would like to read a few quotes from women who have been involved in mediation. This is from a paper called ‘Family Violence and Family Mediation’ by Relationships Australia in Victoria. It says:

Violence and abuse does impact on women’s capacity to mediate. As one woman said, ‘The violence was like a shadow in the room so I could never talk about my wishes.’ Many went ahead with mediation to try and find resolution with a man of whom they were fearful rather than out of a desire to mediate for their own outcomes. Here are a few quotes:

‘I wasn’t emotionally strong enough.’

All women found the process of mediation extremely difficult. They felt unprepared for just how hard it was to mediate with their ex-partners.

‘Neutrality is like saying your story doesn’t exist.’

‘If I tried to talk about the violence she [the mediator] put up her hand to stop me and moved on to the next question.’

I use that quote to highlight the fact that mediation is extremely difficult for those participating in mediation in circumstances of family violence. We support initiatives to encourage families to undertake alternative dispute mediation instead of going to court. We support moves to provide greater resources to family relationship centres. We support initiatives that will improve the accreditation of centres, mediators and counsellors who deliver these services. However, we are concerned about the capacity of the sector to deal with the massive increase in demand brought about by this move to compulsory mediation.

We are also extremely concerned about the lack of skills and resources in this sector to deal with these particularly hard situations of family violence. When questioned during the committee hearing, the experts freely admitted that you need specialised training and that, at the present time, there were not enough people with this specific type of training. In the Greens and Democrats dissenting report, we highlight a list of issues that we believe need to be urgently resolved and addressed in the area of accreditation and training in family dispute resolution services. These tackle the issues of forward programming—how we are going to find sufficient people with expertise and how we are going to train those people. We need to have separate entrance rooms, for example, in situations of domestic violence. There are a range of issues that need to be dealt with if mediation is truly going to work in these difficult and complex situations.

I would also like to mention quickly the urgent need to address counselling and mediation services in rural and remote areas. It is totally unacceptable to be mediating in these difficult situations in teleconferences and over the phone. This situation will fail rural and regional services.

In conclusion, I would like to make the point that we support progress in family law in this country. We are deeply concerned about some of the proposals contained in this legislation. We made a series of recommendations on how to deal with them and I will be putting a series of amendments in committee of the whole to try to address what we believe are serious concerns with this legislation.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Family First recognises and honours the unique and irreplaceable role of mothers and fathers. Parents have the most important and the toughest job of all—raising children. They have the primary responsibility for nurturing, raising and educating their children, who are our nation’s future. As a society, we should do everything we can to support parents in this vital role. Family First salutes them.

Turning to the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2006, Family First’s top priority is the welfare of children. It is a sad and unfortunate fact of life that many relationships end. It is crucial that we find the best way of dealing with these situations to minimise the damage, particularly to children, but also to parents. When I first looked at this legislation I went over the statistics on divorce in Australia. In 2004 there were almost 53,000 divorces granted in Australia—and of course there are thousands of de facto relationships that also end. Looking at those 53,000 divorces as couples, that represents 100,000 people in relationship breakdowns, in the formal sense, for that year. Almost half of the divorces in 2004 involved children under 18 years of age. Of those, about one quarter involved children under five, and more than a third involved children between five and nine.

The Family Court is not a good place for Australian children. In almost 98 per cent of cases, a child will effectively lose one of their parents after a Family Court decision—creating a stolen generation of children. Only 2½ per cent of Family Court orders allow children to have equal time with both parents after a relationship breakdown. That does not make sense and it is not in line with what people would expect. Many would be surprised, as I was, to find out that it was only 2½ per cent.

Family First believes the first question we must always ask is: what is in the best interests of the child? Shared parenting is the best outcome for children, because children can continue to have a real father and a real mother. The current system is clearly not working, and this is having a damaging effect on children. Family First believes a new system is needed—and, to its credit, the government has realised that there is a problem and has introduced this bill. However, it needs to go further, which is why Family First is introducing amendments to ensure shared parenting is the norm.

The way children see it, in a household, they have equal access to their parents. When a relationship ends, the way to maintain equal access for children is shared parenting. If a parent has not done anything wrong, why should the child be penalised by effectively losing one of their parents? For this to work, the parent has to want to exercise their responsibility and be with their child. It is not our purpose to force parents to exercise shared parenting, but Family First would hope that all parents would want to. Just because a relationship ends does not mean the job of being a parent ends.

The value of relationships with extended family, such as grandparents, should never be underestimated. They are so important to children’s development, providing a greater sense of purpose, belonging and inheritance. Participation in extended family life improves children’s chances of building resiliency.

In summary, Family First strongly supports the introduction of a rebuttable presumption of equal parenting time for children after a relationship breakdown. Equal parenting time must be the starting point when considering arrangements after parents have separated—and I emphasise ‘the starting point’. It could be rebutted in a number of ways. One parent may argue to the court that equal parenting would not be in the interests of their child in their particular circumstances, perhaps due to work or travel commitments. The court may determine it could not be ordered because residing with one parent could pose a threat to the physical, psychological or emotional wellbeing of the child.

We all know that sole custody arrangements have caused much distress to children and their non-custodial parents—in most cases, fathers. Because of the way the Family Court follows precedents in determining residency orders, most parties have strong incentives to pursue sole residency orders, and too often the father loses out. Family First amendments are central to the hopes of many people in the community, particularly children, parents and extended families, who have been damaged by the entrenched views of the Family Court against equal parenting. Family First strongly supports their cause and will continue to champion it. Shared parenting is the best outcome for our children—and surely that is argument enough for Family First’s amendments.

Linda Kirk (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this evening to speak on the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2006. Labor support the majority of the provisions in this bill. We believe that the bill will go some way towards smoothing the rough edges in family law and will ease the process for many people who are going through separation and divorce. We commend the government for taking up some of Labor’s amendments to improve this bill. I am a member of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, and we have just concluded an inquiry into the provisions of this bill. The report was tabled on Friday and made available today. I am pleased to say that Labor senators agree with almost all of the recommendations of the majority report. We are particularly pleased that the committee has recommended changes, including a redraft of the definition of family violence and a removal of subsection 117AB in relation to allegations of family violence. As I said, Labor support the main thrust of this legislation. However, we do believe there are several shortcomings. A number of those were covered by Senator Ludwig is his comments earlier today. I intend to talk about some of those in a moment and also about the inquiry.

Firstly, I would like to make some general comments about families in Australia, in particular about the area of family law. I have read recently that there are now one million children in Australia who have one parent living elsewhere. Of those, somewhere of the order of 250,000 children rarely or even never see their non-resident parent. This strikes me as a very sad situation. Of course, there are a variety of reasons behind this. Tragically, some non-resident parents do not want to spend time with their children. Some live a long distance away. In other cases, there are issues of violence or, tragically, even child abuse. Unfortunately, divorce has become a commonplace event in Australian society. In just a few generations, divorce has gone from being a rare occurrence to the situation we have now whereby we are told that around one in two new marriages will not last.

I am not attempting to make any value judgment here. I am not saying that divorce is necessarily a bad thing. We know that women in earlier generations—for example, those who suffered family violence—usually lacked the financial resources or the work skills that would have allowed them to leave the relationship. I make this comment simply because the rise in divorce has led to a dramatic change in our social landscape in Australia. For example, we now accept that a family is no longer just the nuclear family of mum, dad and the kids. All of us here will know or perhaps even belong to a sole-parent family, a step-family or a blended family. This change in the social landscape has brought about great challenges for those of us in the parliament as we seek to make laws to cover a diverse group of families who find themselves in a variety of circumstances. We are aware that any changes we make to family law will not magically help everyone. They will certainly not remove the pain that comes with a family break-up. Even in the most amicable of circumstances, a divorce or separation is a very stressful time. Indeed, the experience of divorce is known to be one of life’s most traumatic experiences, and it is often said that it is second only to the death of an immediate family member.

Parents who are used to seeing their children every day have to adjust to seeing them on a part-time basis. They also have to work out how best to help their children who are also suffering. At the same time as they are trying to adjust to life without their partner, they are also negotiating division of property and, for at least one parent, this often involves moving house and buying new household items, including quite often another set of just about everything for their children. It is not just parents and children who are affected by divorce and family breakdown. Grandparents too may find themselves unable to see their grandchildren as often as they would like, or being unable to alleviate their children and grandchildren’s distress.

Like most senators and members, I receive a very large number of letters on the issues of family law and child support. I estimate that, along with immigration, this is probably the area in which I receive the greatest amount of correspondence. Many of the letters I receive are from non-resident parents, usually fathers, who want to spend more time with their children. I also get letters from grandparents and from new partners in support of non-resident parents. I get letters from resident parents who complain that non-resident parents refuse to contribute their fair share financially or have little interest in seeing their children. Some of these letters are very disturbing. I add that there are also letters that turn stereotypes on their heads. I will give one example of a letter that I received not long ago from a man who is disabled. His wife had left him and he was raising their children alone. This man was living on a disability pension, and his wife, who was in work, refused to contribute financially to the children. On top of that, she was not interested at all in seeing her children. I give this example to indicate that this is a complex issue and that there can never be a one-size-fits-all solution in an area such as this.

I would now like to move on and discuss the substance of the bill and some of the findings of the committee. The first thing I would say is that I welcome the fact that this bill, for the first time, introduces the concept of responsibility into this area of the law. When a parent does not fulfil his or her responsibilities, whether that be a failure to pay child support or through breaching contact orders, this will now be taken into account by the courts. I might add that this notion of responsibility was one of Labor’s amendments, and we are very pleased, as I said, that this has been taken up.

There are other key issues in the bill which have bipartisanship support. Labor supports the promotion of out-of-court dispute resolution though the establishment of family relationship centres. We do, however, have some reservations about the family relationship centres, and I will come to those in a moment. Another area that has Labor’s full support is the provision that courts be required to consider equal or significant and substantial time with each parent where that is appropriate. Many senators here will recall that the idea of a rebuttable presumption of equal time custody was covered in the landmark report of 2003 entitled Every picture tells the story.

At the conclusion of that lengthy House of Representatives inquiry it was decided, on a bipartisan basis, that the rebuttable presumption should be rejected. Instead the committee proposed section 65DAA, which requires that, in making a parenting order, the court must consider whether an equal time or substantial and significant time arrangement is in the best interests of the child and reasonably practical. If such arrangements are in the best interests of the child and reasonably practical, then the court must make an order for those arrangements.

We were also pleased that the government supported our amendments which guarantee that parenting plans must not be made under duress, coercion or threat. When the bill was debated in the House of Representatives, the government, as I said, accepted some of Labor’s amendments, but unfortunately they did not accept all of them. We are particularly disappointed that the government rejected the following amendments: firstly, a reversal of the requirement that an apprehension of family violence be ‘reasonable’; secondly, removal of the requirement for parties to make a ‘genuine effort’ to resolve their dispute in mediation; thirdly, a reversal of the move to equal shared parental responsibility; and, fourthly, a bid to mandate the provision of information to separating couples encouraging them to go to court.

I will now attempt to explain some of these four points in more detail. I will begin with the issue of family violence. I have spoken in this place on many occasions about the prevalence of violence against women. Almost a quarter of women who have been married or in a de facto relationship have experienced some form of violence. We know that the most dangerous time for a woman is just after she has left a relationship. This bill seeks to change the way that violence is assessed so that it becomes an objective rather than subjective definition. You might ask: ‘What is the difference between objective and subjective? Why does this cause a problem?’ The problem is that it implies that there is some acceptable level of threatening conduct. It also fails to take into account a history of abusive treatment.

Under this legislation it is no longer enough to be afraid of someone; you have to prove that you are afraid of them. Just to take an example, let us say that Mary’s husband has a history of violence and Mary knows from past experience that, when he is yelling and leans over her and goes red in the face, he could lash out and hit her. On the other hand, if Suzie’s partner exhibits this behaviour she may not be frightened. I find most disturbing this failure to recognise that there are many different forms of threatening behaviour. It is unreasonable to expect someone to attend compulsory mediation when they are afraid. I also find it ironic that the government’s own advertisements—which we have been seeing on the TV again just recently—on violence against women, as part of the ‘Australia says no’ campaign, give a range of warning signs such as threatening, controlling or possessive behaviours which may be indicators of later violence.

I mentioned earlier that I applaud the recommendation of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee in relation to this issue. The committee recommends:

The proposed definition of family violence should be redrafted to clarify that the test is the ‘reasonable person in the shoes of the individual and whether they would fear or have an apprehension of violence’.

There is no level playing field for parents when one person fears for their safety. This problem is compounded by the government’s requirement that the parties need to make a ‘genuine effort’ to resolve their dispute in mediation. This is a matter on which the committee received a considerable amount of evidence.

If one person sits through compulsory mediation in fear, unable to contribute, the question is: will she be given a black mark or judged as not making a ‘genuine effort’? The government announced an independent inquiry into family violence on 26 February this year. This research is being conducted by the Australian Institute of Family Studies. Labor is concerned that the government is changing the definition of family violence without waiting for the results from this research.

I now move to the question of equal shared parental responsibility. Labor wanted to amend the word ‘equal’ back to ‘joint’, as was originally proposed by the government. Parental responsibility is a separate issue from residence and contact. It is not focused on how much time a parent spends with a child. It is defined as ‘all the duties, powers, responsibilities, and authority which, by law, parents have in relation to children’.

For a start it is nonsense to presume that this can be neatly carved into two equal parts. In addition, the reason why Labor wanted the word ‘joint’ is that we think that the government is trying to create a false impression here. We believe that, if the word ‘equal’ is used, there will be people who assume that the government supports the idea of equal shared time, which, as I said, actually has very little to do with responsibility.

We are disappointed that the government voted against our amendment to guarantee in law that the move to compulsory mediation be coupled with three hours of free mediation. There are also question marks about the family relationship centres. So far we have no details about whether or not there will be proper accreditation standards, quality control or training in how to recognise family violence. As I said, family violence being the very serious issue that it is, this is absolutely critical if these family relationship centres are to operate effectively.

There is one final comment I would like to make, and again it is on the issue of violence. I am quite concerned that the government has rejected our suggestion against allowing cost orders against people who make false accusations of family violence. There is little evidence that false accusations of violence are a major problem. From time to time we hear anecdotal stories, but there is no research or statistics to back this up. On the other hand, we do know that violence against women is grossly underreported. I am pleased that the committee could see this point, and the committee has recommended that there should be no change towards imposing costs until such research that I have referred to is commissioned by the government and is made available. It is unclear whether this is an area that needs solving, and therefore the proposed obligation on the court to make costs orders against parties found to have knowingly made false allegations should not be included in this piece of legislation.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that Labor agrees with almost all of the recommendations of the majority report. As a consequence, we support most of the provisions in this bill. We do not agree with all that the government has proposed. We believe that there is significant room for improvement and, as Senator Ludwig indicated, Labor will be moving amendments to the bill along the lines that I have suggested. In addition, the seven-day cooling-off period will be addressed. Finally, Labor supports most of the provisions of this bill but we would like to see some amendments that would improve it in the way that I have suggested. I urge senators to support Labor’s amendments.

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on behalf of the Australian Democrats as their Attorney-General spokesperson, to address the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2006 and comment on what are significant—extremely significant in some cases—changes to the Family Law Act. The Australian Democrats recognise that the intention of this bill is to generate a less adversarial approach in some of these matters, particularly in resolving custody disputes and attempting to improve outcomes for families in the event of family breakdown. We acknowledge the government’s comment in the bill’s explanatory memorandum that these changes are intended to bring about a cultural shift in how family separation is managed—that is, away from litigation and towards cooperative parenting. We also recognise the process that this bill has been through prior to its arrival in this place for debate this evening, so it has quite a significant contemporary—if you like—parliamentary history.

The bill primarily implements a number of recommendations from the 2003 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs report on child custody arrangements, entitled Every picture tells a story. Following the release of that report, an exposure draft of the bill was referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which reported last year. The bill was first considered by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee during a single-day hearing conducted, I think, on 3 March—this month. Despite the lengthy consideration of this bill by the House of Representatives committees, the Senate committee process was truncated. Certainly we believe the time allowed for consideration of this legislation was inadequate under the circumstances, particularly given the significance and volume of the legislation and the changes.

The Democrats do recognise that the chair’s report contains a series of recommendations for improving this bill. The Democrats do not believe that those recommendations go far enough. A dissenting report was therefore drafted and submitted by Senator Andrew Bartlett, the Australian Democrats family services spokesperson, and me on behalf of the Democrats and also by Senator Siewert on behalf of the Australian Greens. It is noted in the dissenting report that the 36-hour time frame that we had to comment on the chair’s report and recommendations and then provide our supplementary or dissenting report was an inadequate time for such a far-reaching piece of legislation. Despite the limited time available to comment, we did seek to elaborate on some key concerns that we felt were not adequately addressed in the chair’s report.

I might note at this point that one recommendation from the chair’s report that we resoundingly support in its current form is recommendation 7. This recommendation opposes the introduction of section 117AB, the provision allowing for the awarding of costs where an allegation of violence is proven to be false. We will move an amendment to this effect, to ensure that the intention of that recommendation is upheld. We have concerns that this provision would have the effect of further promoting the existing problem—one that I am sure many would agree exists—of underreporting of family violence. We believe that currently the bill as it is structured would have a deleterious impact on people reporting instances of family violence, and that is obviously something we want to prevent.

During the Senate committee process, evidence was provided by groups suggesting that without changes this legislation could actually have disastrous consequences for the safety of vulnerable family members, especially women and children in our community and especially where there is a history of family violence. In the submission by the National Council of Single Mothers and Their Children, evidence was provided which said:

There is significant research to show that domestic violence and child abuse are very real issues for many women and children, and that separation from an abusive partner can be the most dangerous time for women and children.

They go on to say:

The proposed reforms not only do not address how the family law system will be improved to protect women and children from ongoing violence and abuse following a separation, but in fact create further barriers to women and children achieving safety. The proposed changes take a punitive approach towards women and their attempts to escape domestic violence and abuse.

I want to be very clear about this. We agree with the position outlined by the opposition, that this bill has become politicised. Of course; it is always going to be, considering the political nature of some of the subjects under discussion and the political views perhaps driving some of the provisions. But we also recognise that the focus needs to return to what is important, and what is important is that better outcomes are created for children and for families. What is also important is to return that focus to protecting children and also people—specifically and usually women—who have been exposed to violence or abuse in a family setting and continue to be at risk post separation.

The issue of funding has been raised by a number of groups. Family Services Australia expressed concern during the inquiry about what they perceive to be inadequate consideration of approaches to ensure equitable impacts across target groups. There is a concern that the funding to be provided to supplement these changes will be insufficient, in particular to cater for those groups with special needs or those groups that cannot access services for any particular reason. The Democrats sincerely hope that in allocating funding the government hears the concerns of these groups and responds to them.

The Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2006 will fundamentally change the way parenting orders under part 7 of the act are determined. Firstly, before a court can hear an application for a parenting order, with a few exceptions, parents will be required to adhere to a new regime of compulsory family dispute resolution. Then, if an agreement is not reached and a court application is made, the court is directed to apply a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility in determining parenting orders. If this presumption is upheld, the court must consider whether spending equal time or substantial and significant time with each parent is in the best interests of the child and reasonably practicable, and if it is must consider granting this distribution of time with each parent.

The bill will also change the way in which a child’s best interests are to be determined. The bill creates a new two-tier regime for the determination of a child’s best interests. It relegates the considerations currently in 68F of the old act to the position of additional considerations. It introduces two new primary considerations for the determination of a child’s best interests. These are the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm or being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence.

As you have heard, a new definition of family violence will be introduced as a result of this legislation. The definition will become an objective one where the alleged victim’s experience will be tested by reference to a reasonable fear or apprehension in relation to their wellbeing or safety. The bill also contains a provision that will allow for cost orders to be made against a person found to falsely allege family violence. As I have mentioned, the Democrats have circulated a number of amendments, including ones that address these issues in particular. We have certainly addressed a number of issues that we hope will ameliorate some of the worst aspects of the bill.

The Democrats note the government amendments that passed the House during the last session. These amendments did address various issues of concern but they did not significantly alleviate these concerns, as articulated by groups providing evidence of the overall harmful effect this bill will have particularly on women and children, particularly those with a history of family violence and/or those who are disadvantaged in some way. One amendment that we are keen to make clear on the record has a positive effect is (7), which will allow for parties to be exempt from compulsory dispute resolution where their safety is at risk or where there is a risk that a child may suffer abuse. We consider that, subject to a number of further amendments which we will propose, this bill will be improved and more closely achieve its stated aims. As a caveat to this, we specifically note the difficulties posed by the existence of family violence or child abuse.

The issue of consent orders was raised during the committee inquiry by Relationships Australia. The discussion on this issue clearly demonstrated the need for further safeguards to prevent violence as a consequence of these changes. Ms Susan Holmes, representing Relationships Australia, a peak national counselling body, submitted:

... a lot of abuse is quite well hidden and it is a matter of reading the clues. I am very concerned about consent orders. A couple, where there is a lot of intimidation, can present consent orders.

                 …         …         …

I understand some judges and registrars who approve consent orders read them and some do not.

                 …         …           …

... with domestic violence, there is a real risk that consent orders might slip through without anyone identifying that this seems a peculiar arrangement.

I have used this example to demonstrate that this area of the law has many complexities, as we all know. These complexities, if not addressed, may actually mean greater tragedy than we have already seen examples of, following the breakdown of families. Protections for the vulnerable are essential. Protections need to be strengthened.

The Democrat key concerns are as follows. We consider that the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility as a starting point for determining where a child lives after parental separation generates more of a focus on parents’ rights than on what is actually in the child’s best interests. We should not be talking about rights and entitlements for parents; we should be focusing on the best interests of the child. We consider that the child has become objectified by this process, objectified in this discussion, and the issue is becoming one of entitlement.

I note the comments earlier from Senator Kirk and, I have no doubt, others. The use of the term ‘equal’ has been criticised widely. It is considered quite a divisive term that focuses more on parents’ rights than on the responsibility component. The Australian Democrats will move an amendment to alter the language of the bill to the term ‘joint parental responsibility’ which, as you have heard articulated in previous speeches, is a more appropriate reference and a less divisive term.

The Democrats also oppose the inclusion of the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility on the basis that it is unnecessary to apply a presumption as the court should have the child’s best interests as its primary focus. We are worried that we are losing focus on this. Why should we presume and ensure that the court works within that set of presumptions? The court should have as its primary focus the best interests of the child.

Evidence was provided in a submission to the Senate inquiry by Women’s Legal Services Australia. They claim that ‘the presumption of contact has permeated family law practice and led to a pro-contact culture that promotes the right to contact over safety’, which ‘undermines the child’s best interests in that it fails to properly prioritise the adverse effects on children of being exposed to abuse either directly or by witnessing the abuse of their parent’. These are serious, fundamental, complex, difficult issues, and they are not satisfactorily dealt with in this legislation. The effect of this presumption, when coupled with the court’s requirement to consider whether equal or substantial and significant time is arguably to create a de facto presumption and compounds the divergence from consideration of what is best for children. The Democrats have serious concerns about this. Women’s Legal Services Australia submitted to the inquiry:

... the provisions in sections 65DAA and 63DA, which require consideration or direct attention to specific types of parenting arrangements—namely, equal time or substantially shared time arrangements—derogate from a free and open assessment of what arrangement may be best for children in a specific case ...

The Democrats agree with this statement. We agree that this is the case under the bill before us as it is currently drafted. We acknowledge that a stable environment encourages healthy child development. However, there has been no conclusive evidence to prove that a presumption of equal time rather than a consideration of the child’s unique circumstances in each case would be of any benefit to a child. And surely that is the focus here.

The new structure for determining what is in a child’s best interests includes conflicting primary requirements that a child have meaningful relationships with both parents and that they should be protected from harm. We note the difficulty caused by situations where the child may have an abusive or violent parent. The additional considerations forming part of this structure resemble old provision 68F but now include a ‘friendly parent provision’: a willingness by one parent to facilitate a close relationship with the other parent. This provision is problematic, as the requirement that a parent facilitates a relationship between the child and a potentially abusive parent has the potential to override the safety of the child.

The Democrats also object to the fact that children’s views have been relegated to additional considerations. The Law Society of South Australia has noted its opinion:

The Bill is extremely parent-centric and in no way supports the child or young person in negotiations or proceedings.

I thought that we were leaving that culture behind. I thought that we were supposedly strengthening and supporting the rights, views and interests of children, not framing legislation that diminishes them. We understand the intention of these provisions but we consider the structure in 68F the preferable option for truly determining a child’s best interests. The requirement that mediators will have to judge if parents are making a ‘genuine effort’ to mediate is also problematic. This means that their role is no longer that of a traditional mediator who remains impartial and neutral.

I have referred to the issues surrounding funding for services provided for by this legislation. The Democrats also note the concerns around appropriate accreditation of staff providing these services. We hope that this will be an equitable and transparent process focused on providing the best outcomes for families.

We will move an amendment to address this and other concerns. Consideration especially needs to be given to disadvantaged groups. These include people in remote regional areas, people with culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, Indigenous people, people with health and mental health issues, those on low incomes and those who cannot access technology for financial or other reasons. The Democrat amendment proposes to review the impact of this bill on these groups within two years of the commencement of the bill, and I hope other parties will consider that.

The new definition of family violence proposed by this bill, as I have said, requires an objective assessment of whether or not the victim’s fear is reasonable. We believe this undermines the known facts provided by those with experience and understanding of domestic violence. The experience is that often only the victim knows the signs.

The Democrats propose an alternative definition of family violence. It is modelled on the Western Australian domestic violence legislation, which removes the objective assessment and includes intimidating behaviour. We will propose an amendment to retain the current structure in 68F of the act in the new 60CC, in relation to determining the child’s best interests, so as to remove the two-tiered approach to assessment. We will also seek to remove from the bill the presumption of equal shared responsibility and the equal, substantial and significant time considerations, so that cases will continue to be judged on the best interests of the child—that is, on the child’s unique circumstances.

We want to ensure that there is greater consideration of children’s needs in this bill. We have proposed a series of amendments to return the focus to children. The focus needs to return to children and their best interests. The focus should be on parental responsibilities rather than rights. If the Democrat amendments are supported, which we believe will improve this legislation, then we will support this bill as a piece of legislation that hopefully will move forward and improve the family law system.

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The conceptual basis of the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2006 has been drawn from the findings of several inquiries, beginning with the 2003 report Every picture tells a story, from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs inquiry into child custody arrangements in the event of family separation. This report recommended amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 which aimed to bring about a cultural shift in how family separation is managed.

The inquiry was the result of concerns articulated by Prime Minister Howard about the high level of ‘unhappiness with the operation of matters relating to the custody of children following marriage breakdown’ and ‘the operation of the Child Support Agency’. In his comments, Mr Howard focused on his concern that too many young boys were growing up without proper male role models. The fact that young girls were left out of these influential remarks to the House of Representatives was significant, as it set the tone of bias that permeated the following reports and inquiries that led to the development of this bill.

Given rapidly changing social circumstances and attitudes to relationships, marriage and separation, the Greens believe that some reform of the family law system would be useful. However, this government seems unwilling and unable to balance the ever-changing concerns and needs of fathers with those of mothers and their children. Every picture tells a story was followed by the release of the exposure draft by the Attorney-General, who described it as the most significant change to the family law system in 30 years. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs was then asked to look at the exposure draft bill to find out if it adequately implemented the previous report. This resulted in further refinements to the bill. The third inquiry was by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, which took a further 200 submissions and reported its findings on 24 March this year.

Family breakdown is undoubtedly a very difficult and sensitive issue and a highly emotional experience for all those concerned. Despite this, we know that 95 per cent of family law matters are resolved without the need for court orders—in other words, most people can eventually work it out for themselves. This means that it is a very small minority of the most difficult cases that end up with complex court proceedings that result in court orders. Yet it is from this small percentage of intractable cases that the most heat is generated.

While there is no question that genuine instances of injustice have occurred, it would be safe to assume that the family courts are capable of assessing the individual circumstances to find a proper balanced outcome on most occasions. This is borne out by statistics from the Child Support Agency. Where parents agree by themselves, in 90 per cent of cases they agree that the child or children will end up in the sole principal care of one person, and that is usually the mother. The latest statistics from the Attorney-General’s Department on cases with a court order show that only 75 per cent of orders are made in favour of the mother and 20 per cent in favour of the father.

The fundamental premise for these family law changes as promoted by the Howard government is that the courts do not have the balance right because they frequently discriminate against non-resident parents, who are usually fathers. This view—that the courts get it wrong--—matches the message that the highly organised fathers groups have been promoting. They argue that fathers have been getting a rough deal. Some prominent experts do not support this view. Last December, the former Chief Justice of the Family Court, Alistair Nicholson, stated that the government, through this bill, was simply pandering:

... to the strong pressure that’s been put on the Government by various militant fathers’ groups.

The academic Michael Flood from the Australia Institute shed further light on who these fathers groups are and what they believe in the report Fatherhood and fatherlessness. He described these groups as maintaining their momentum by focusing ‘on men as victims of injustice in family law’. He also noted that these groups also work:

... in alliance with conservative Christian organisations to lobby for changes in child custody and child support policies.

The author has recently argued:

The fathers’ rights movement is defined by the claim that fathers are deprived of their ‘rights’ and subjected to systematic discrimination as men and fathers, in a system biased towards women and dominated by feminists.

These descriptions are supported by the submissions to the various inquiries that have influenced the development of this bill. Many of the submissions were form letters or close derivatives from these fathers’ rights groups.

These circumstances reminded me of the RU486 debate, where specific interest groups were also able to muster a great deal of noise in the form of well-organised campaigns and multiple submissions. Yet, just like with RU486, a point made loudly does not mean it necessarily represents the best policy outcome for greater society. I agree with Alistair Nicholson and many others who argue that these very noisy fathers groups have been particularly persuasive in having their message heard by the Howard government. It is a mistake to think that a large volume of submissions necessarily represents genuine widespread community concern. In this instance, it also very important to note that single mothers, due to the obvious and necessary prioritisations, are one of the most time deficient groups within society. They are consequently not necessarily able to muster the spare time required to effectively lobby, write submissions or attend committees.

One of the most concerning aspects of this bill is the move to introduce a formulaic approach for the Family Court based on the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility. While this appears to be a step back from earlier drafts that were based on a presumption of equal time to be spent by children with both parents, there remain similar concerns about what is effectively a watering down of judicial discretion. While the government implies there is a softening of the equal time approach, the Greens and others argue that the two presumptions are essentially the same. Even Senator Fielding, while coming to a substantially different conclusion, agrees in his dissenting report that these concepts are essentially the same.

The problem is that any move to introduce such a presumption moves away from the needs and, indeed, the rights of the child to an emphasis on the rights of the parents. This is illustrated by the shift in emphasis from the child’s views or wishes to a list of secondary considerations for the court to use in determining the child’s best interests. The child’s views are now listed below the two primary considerations for determining the child’s best interest—that is, the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both their parents and the need to protect the child from neglect, abuse or violence. The Greens agree with the comments by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission that this significantly downgrades the importance of the views of the child. Similarly, the presumption of equally shared parental responsibility or time creates the situation where children are viewed as a commodity belonging to parents. Family Services Australia put it concisely when they said:

The minute you bring in the situation where you are talking about ‘equal’, it is almost like talking about property.

Children are not property, and their views, where attainable, should be paramount to any considerations.

Just like the devaluation of the needs and interests of children, this bill and the various inquiries and reports that influenced it have ignored the changing needs and rights of mothers that find themselves dealing with the difficulty of family separation. Recent evidence shows that single mothers are most vulnerable to suffering from mental health problems. Research recently published in the Medical Journal of Australia showed that sole mothers were more likely than other women to have experienced suicidal thoughts, to have used medication for depression and to suffer from depression or other psychological disorders.

In addition, many single mothers have great difficulty in correctly accessing child support payments. Recent announcements by the Howard government to overhaul the child support system have compounded these concerns and drawn criticism from groups such as the National Council of Single Mothers and Their Children, who are concerned that ‘financial outcomes for an estimated 60 per cent of children of separated parents in their primary place of residence will decline under the government’s adoption of the recommendations of the ministerial task force on child support.’

In addition, there has been widespread unease about the ability of the changes advocated in this bill to adequately deal with the issue of violence, specifically domestic violence. It must be recalled that this legislation will in the main only effect the small minority of cases that require the assistance of the courts to resolve disputes. It is equally significant that domestic violence and safety concerns are one of the key reasons that many women and children end up in the family law court. Research by the Australian Institute of Family Studies found that violence was present in 66 per cent of all marital breakdowns and 33 per cent of this was identified as ‘serious’ violence. A 2003 family law court survey also showed that over 66 per cent of the women and children who make it to the final stage of judgement in the Family Court have issues of serious physical domestic violence. The Greens are additionally concerned that the definition of domestic violence adopted in this bill is inadequate and does not provide adequately for family members at risk of family violence. This will clearly affect many women.

Yet in addition to such daunting evidence weighing against the interests of mums, there is also a troublesome new provision that effectively enforces mediation. The onus will now fall on the sole mother to find exceptions to get out of this dispute resolution process even though the statistics suggest that most of these cases will involve some level of violence. On top of this are the new provisions and substantial fines and costs to be awarded against those found to have provided ‘false allegations’. Yet this is in an area that is notoriously difficult to ascertain as the majority of cases will be his word against hers. As suggested by research published by the Australian Journal of Family Law this year, overseas experience suggests such compulsory attendance will simply add to the cost of the family law system.

The Law Society of New South Wales argued in their submission to the Senate inquiry that for some, especially self-represented litigants, such provisions will simply be a statutory licence to ‘have a go at the ex’. The list of problems with this bill points to an overall bias against women and children, the balance tipping disproportionately towards the rights of fathers. The Greens believe that to succeed any alterations to Australia’s system of family law must work to balance fathers’ concerns with the significant needs of mothers and their children. In addition, concepts such as shared parental responsibility are best applied before problems that lead to separation occur, as the game is nearly always over by the time it gets to court. Where courts are necessary, the Greens believe it is essential to empower the judiciary to find out all they need to know so they can evaluate the circumstances of individual cases and not simply enforce a regime, such as highlighted in this bill, that risks replacing all important judicial discretion and flexibility with an ideologically driven acquiesce to a vocal lobby group.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2006. That bill sounds innocuous, even positive. What could be better than shared parental responsibility? Women have in fact been calling for men to take on their fair share of the tasks of raising children for a very long time. Some do, to their great credit. Some would like to, but work and other commitments keep them away from the family. Others are neither good fathers nor good parents.

The Family Court has the unenviable task of trying to sort out custody arrangements when parents break up their relationship and live separately and who are unable to reach agreement. As I understand it, that represents a very small proportion of those who separate: just five per cent of cases actually go to the Family Court. These are necessarily the most difficult and most contested cases of family break-up, and the result of their deliberations almost always leaves one, sometimes more, parties deeply aggrieved at the outcome. I think we all understand that. There would not be a person in this place who has not received hundreds if not thousands of emails, mostly from men—sometimes new partners—who describe the trauma, anguish and emotional state they are in as a result of not having access to their children. I do not want to suggest that there is no understanding for those left in this position. But these are almost always families that are in crisis, and, very often, they are dealing with violence, according to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics women’s safety survey in 1996 showed that 23 per cent of women who had ever been married or in de facto relationships had experienced violence. A quarter of intimate partner homicides occur between separated, divorced or former couples. Family breakdown, according to recent New South Wales research, was a precipitating factor in almost 20 per cent of child homicides. We have all read with great alarm the dreadful cases of children becoming the victims of disputes between parents—and paying for it with their lives. So often it is a recently separated couple where this occurs.

Violence and safety worries are the key reasons many women and children end up in the Family Court. Sixty-six per cent of cases that reach the final stage of judgment contain issues of serious physical domestic violence. Children witnessing parental domestic violence are left with scars and behaviour that very often last them a lifetime. In our mental health inquiry we were told that if parents stopped acting violently in front of their children this would have huge preventive benefits to the mental health and resilience of their children. Witnessing parental violence causes a range of behavioural and emotional problems amongst children and is the strongest predictor that young people themselves will later use violence in their own intimate relationships. It is easy to understand that because parents are role models. If a child does not see a role model which includes a respectful relationship then they are more likely as adults to repeat the sort of relationship that they observed as a child. It is a cycle of abuse and failed relationships that repeats itself generation after generation. And there is no equality for the individuals, almost always women, in this cycle.

On Wednesday the Senate will vote on the terms of reference for an inquiry into sexual health and relationships education. This will be because many of us in this place believe it is important that we find out how to break those cycles of violence and that schools might be able to assist. I sometimes visit a small primary school just out of Bendigo which began an anti-bullying program some years ago. The program started when the domestic violence centre in town came to the school and said: ‘We need to stop the cycle of violence and we would like to head it off with children. We want to start by dealing with grade 3s and grade 5s. We want to experiment to see if it is possible to change the relationships which exist in that cycle that goes on for generations and to encourage and facilitate much more respectful and positive relationships for those children.’ The program has been a huge success, though we will not know that finally until those children reach true adulthood, but certainly those children behave very differently as a result of that program. There are programs of that sort in schools right around the country, and relationships are an important aspect of sexual reproductive education because they are so closely connected.

To return to the bill: with almost a quarter of women experiencing family violence at some time, it can be expected that many of them will find themselves at the Family Court in a contested case. This legislation shifts the balance away from what is in the interests of the child to give more equal weight, firstly, to the child having a so-called meaningful relationship with both the child’s parents and, secondly, to protection of the child from physical and psychological harm due to being subjected to or exposed to abuse, neglect or family violence. The views of the child, as has already been said in this debate, are given only secondary consideration. What that means is that it is less likely that evidence from a child about not wishing to spend time with one or other parent is not going to be considered and therefore child abuse is less likely to be avoided.

Another very alarming aspect of this bill is the cost penalty that can apply to so-called false allegations of domestic violence. Usually there are no witnesses to violence in the home, other than children who may or may not be able to give evidence to this effect. It will be very easy to intimidate women, to dissuade them from making accusations of domestic violence, particularly if they have very little money. It is a very frightening prospect indeed, and there is almost no doubt in my mind that women will be very shaken by that threat. I want to go to what the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission said about false allegations in their submission to the inquiry:

HREOC is well aware of the concerns of some individuals and community organisations that false allegations of family violence are regularly made. For example, in its submission to a review of legislation regarding protection orders, the Lone Fathers’ Association states that protection orders “are employed as a routine separation procedure” by women to force their husbands out of their homes, without any violence having occurred, “and/or as a vindictive retaliatory act”.

HREOC would caution against accepting this contention uncritically. There is no doubt that Family Court proceedings often are accompanied by allegations of domestic violence and the use of protection orders. However, this may reflect the fact that domestic violence often escalates when couples separate. Australian data demonstrate that women are as likely to experience violence by previous partners as by current partners and that it is the time around and after separation which is most dangerous for women.

As I have indicated, this bill is about parents’, mostly fathers’, rights to equal access to children. But equal access will not solve domestic violence situations, it will not deliver responsible parenting and it is not in the best interests of the children or, indeed, their mothers. In fact, equal shared parenting presumptions are about entitlements. I think this is an attack on single mothers, the vast majority of whom are disadvantaged in any case with the break-up of a marriage or even of a de facto relationship. It is unfair and it is not in the interests of families, children or single mothers.

Back in December last year Women’s Legal Services Australia provided members of parliament with what I think was a very useful assessment of this bill. They said:

Positive quality relationships between children and parents are not dependent on parents having equal time with children. Substantially sharing parenting time is only successful in some limited circumstances—including where parents can communicate well about their children, live close together and respect each others views about parenting issues.

From the many hundreds of messages that I have received I cannot think of a single one where I could say, ‘This man’—in some limited cases this woman—‘does not have a respectful relationship with his former partner and certainly does not reflect their views about parenting issues.’ Women’s Legal Services go on to say:

Families in rural and remote areas have less access to services and support. Women in rural and remote areas have limited access to protection.

I think we are going down a very dangerous course with this legislation. I think it is unwise, as the government has obviously done, to listen to a very vocal minority group of people; in this case, mostly groups associated with the Lone Fathers Association. I do understand their grief and I do understand the trauma of separation, but there are not necessarily answers which satisfy both parties, and children should not to be in the middle of this—being torn between one and the other. As Women’s Legal Services Australia say, it is not always appropriate for children to be transported from one household to another. In my own experience teenagers resent this—some do not, some do, depending on the relationship they already have with their parents—and for many this can be a really traumatic time.

I think that the current law should stand. I think the Family Court does an extremely good job at trying to sort out these problems and to find answers which are the most satisfactory for children. It is true that that usually means, in those five per cent of cases which come to the family courts, that mothers have the principal custody of children. That is usually my experience too, and I am sure there are plenty of submissions that pointed this out to this inquiry. It is also true that mothers are usually the ones who have had the principal responsibility for raising the child or children prior to the separation. This is a very difficult area but, in my view, this bill heads in the wrong direction and the Senate should reject it.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2006 is a very important piece of legislation. As we all know, it is immensely controversial. It is a core example of the fact that the most important work that the parliament does is not, by and large, the part that gets most of the media coverage. It is not the finger pointing, the name-calling and the point scoring. It is the consideration of policy issues and the determination and passage of legislation, because that is what directly affects people’s lives. Of course, this type of legislation is one that affects some of the most painful areas of people’s lives and for that reason it will always be contentious, it will always leave people dissatisfied and it will always fall short of the ideal.

I come to this piece of legislation having sat through the day’s worth of public hearings into the legislation as it reached the Senate, but also having followed the progress of it through previous inquiries—from a distance as it were, I suppose, but certainly as an interested observer. As a legislator and a senator who tries to keep across issues of significance and complexity and also from my own previous background as a social worker, I am aware of the difficulties of these issues and aware of the almost impossible task of trying to put in place a legislative framework that will adequately address the competing interests.

We are all aware—I imagine most of us are, anyway—of the biblical parable of King Solomon being asked to decide the fate of a baby who is being claimed by two different women, and coming up with the solution to try and determine who the genuine parent is. That might have worked once and it might have worked in that case but I think, frankly, Solomon would have a lot of difficulty trying to work out a solution for many of the most difficult cases that come before the Family Court.

I should say that, whilst we can always find reasons to criticise specific judgments and specific institutions—and I am as willing to do so as others—we should pause for a moment to consider just how difficult a task that court has, those judges have and the others that work in that area have, including, I might say, the social workers—those that try and work with people beforehand to try and get an outcome and try to get results that can be agreed to by all the people involved, rather than having to get an outside legal determination. That is the best way, where possible, but the simple fact is that at times it does get to a circumstance where that determination has to be made. And in the vast majority of such circumstances where a determination like that has to be made, where these things are in dispute and cannot be resolved by other means, you will not be able to get an outcome that will satisfy both parents, and in many cases you will not get an outcome that will satisfy either parent.

The other aspect that I bring to the legislation is as a parent and as a father—as many of us in this chamber are. And I bring a reminder that, despite all of the advocacy we get about this aspect of family law—the aspect to do with shared parental responsibility, looking at the title of the legislation—it is about responsibility towards the child or the children. It is not about us. It is not about the parents. It is not about the fathers. It is not about the mothers. It is about the children. The simple fact is we all get lobbied about this time and time again, very forcefully, with very genuine stories. The people we very rarely get lobbied by are the children, because they do not have a voice. We will always as parents, I am sure, convince ourselves that what each of us wants in regard to contact with our child is best for that child, but we are not always, when we get in these circumstances, in the best position to judge.

As I am sure all of us here do, I get a lot of emails and other contact from people who are going through the pain of limited contact with their children. I read many of those. I certainly read all of those that come from my own state of Queensland and I read some of the others as well. It is quite clear from many of those that the pain is enormous and genuine. But the simple fact is that it is not possible in many cases for parliaments or courts to come up with a formula that will take that sort of pain away. People expect a lot of politicians, as they should, and politicians hold themselves out as having the magic solutions to lots of things—more than we should. But we do not have the magic solution to these sorts of situations and we should not present ourselves as doing so. And most of us do not, particularly in this area.

This legislation, as it has finally reached the Senate, is the result of a long process. As has already been outlined by most speakers, it is still in a situation which certainly has significant room for improvement. But it recognises that this is not a situation that can produce satisfaction for all parties and particularly not for all parents. The simple, cold and very harsh reality is that it is not about producing satisfaction for the parents; it is about producing the best outcome for the child. All of us need to try and be more realistic and more brutal about that very unpleasant reality—that that is not the ultimate goal; the ultimate goal is the best outcome for the child. It is not always the case that maximum contact with each parent will equal the best outcome for the child. That is a simple fact and there is a vast amount of research in this area that demonstrates that.

There are a couple of aspects of the legislation that I want to touch on in a little bit more detail. The lack of attention being paid to the voice of the children and the ultimate long-term needs of the child is a serious problem in this debate. It is almost inevitable, given the way the process works, that it will be the adults who get all the attention. It will be the political pressures from the adults that focus and shape the way we as politicians deal with the situation, because adults get the vote. Children do not get the vote; children do not have a voice. I am not using this as an argument to say they should, I might say, but it is a reminder that, to some extent, we have to look over the top of the understandable, nonetheless very prevalent, advocacy from adults and look at the children. It is that aspect of the legislation in particular that really concerns me.

One of the problems that were clear from the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee inquiry into the provisions of the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005 is that all of us, to some extent, are making judgment calls about how courts will interpret this legislation into the future. Clearly, we would not be having this debate if most, if not all, of us did not believe there was some scope for improving the law as it currently stands. As I said earlier in my speech, we cannot ever get this legislation to a situation where it will be perfect and deliver satisfied people all round, but we should certainly always strive to continue to improve it as much as possible. What is being done in this legislation in regard to determining the best interests of the child is of concern. It remains to be seen how these sorts of provisions will be interpreted by courts in the future. That is something none of us can be definitive about, but we can make educated guesses about how it is likely to be interpreted.

Personally, I think it is concerning that the way the best interests of the child are determined is being altered in this legislation. It implements a two-tiered approach. In the second of those tiers, just under what are listed as additional considerations, is the issue of children’s views. I recognise that children of the age of two, three or four may not be in a position to give comprehensive, definitive views about what they see and what they want and, of course, that parents can influence children in what can be very stressful situations about what they might say their views are about particular situations. But, on principle, it is most concerning to have children’s views listed as an additional consideration rather than a primary consideration. That is one thing I really want to emphasise.

There are other aspects of the bill I have concerns about. Issues to do with the definition of domestic violence is one. With my background in the area of social work, it is something that is the subject of a lot of assertions as part of the wider debates in this area that I think are quite dangerous. Others in this debate, including my Democrat colleagues, have covered that area, so I will not revisit that or go over that same ground. But I also believe that the broader risk with the legislation—and just how big a problem it will turn out to be depends, firstly, on how many amendments the Senate chooses to make and, secondly, how courts end up determining it down the track—is that it puts the issues of parents’ rights and parents’ demands over and above children’s rights and parental responsibilities. It is something of a mantra, but a mantra that has a lot of accuracy to it, that ‘with rights come responsibilities’. I think there has been too much in the politics surrounding this debate in the community that has focused too much on the parents’ rights and what the parents want and not enough on the parents’ responsibilities, which have to go back to what is best for the child.

Of course, there are overlaps there. I am not suggesting that all of these things are totally discrete and separate. Nonetheless, it is a matter of different emphases. I think we are at risk of making the emphasis wrong in this regard. I have specifically attempted to take a measured approach in relation to the legislation and the language that is used because we are dealing with an issue that is very delicate and sensitive. It is an issue, as I said at the start, that is the subject of an enormous amount of pain in the community and amongst many people. Certainly, as a parent, it is an issue that I can empathise with. I certainly recognise why it causes such distress. Whilst we have to take account of that distress, we cannot allow that to dominate the decisions that we come to.

In the context of trying to ensure that we take as measured an approach to this as possible, there are two more points I wish to make. This legislation deals predominantly with the issue of legal proceedings regarding family breakdown and particularly with what happens with children and other aspects as a result of the separation of an adult partnership. It does not deal with issues of child support, the Child Support Agency and the formulae surrounding that. As we all know, there have been separate inquiries and decisions going on in regard to that. There is legislation coming through on that.

I should say that, whilst I do not agree with all of the detail of what is being proposed in that regard and I think it also warrants further investigation, clearly the formulae and results of child support arrangements as they are currently occurring do create unnecessary injustices that can be improved on. That is something that I think also needs to be examined as promptly as possible. But, on this aspect of the legislation and in this area in particular, we do need to recognise that the ultimate decision has to be focused on the child.

The other point I want to make is in regard to the comments made by Family First in their dissenting report. I heard the speech of the Family First senator earlier. I suppose that, whatever position or amendment anybody puts forward on this legislation, they will preface it by saying that it is in the interests of the child because that is the magical phrase—and so it should be, because it is the most crucial issue. But you do have to look beneath the phrase at what the actual issue is that is being proposed.

I find the assertion put forward by Family First that it is about equal parenting time rather than equal parenting responsibility a very dangerous assertion. It is not just dangerous to put something like that into law. Also, frankly, as a principle, if the way we assess who is being a good parent and who is not is on the basis of how much time each of us spend with our children, I imagine that all of us in this place for starters would be automatically lumped into the bad parenting category. Anybody who is in a situation, voluntary or employment related or otherwise, where they spend a lot of time away from their child should not automatically therefore be seen to be part of a situation that is contributing to a harmful circumstance for their child.

There are more things than time. Time is important—again, all of us here would be more than aware of that as well as the difficulties that can come from the absence of time. But it really does have some very unfortunate overtones of harking back to an old-style approach of just seeing children as property—where, as part of the property breakdown and division, parents who are splitting up look at who gets to stake a claim in the children as well as in the house and everything else. That is a mindset that we must reject categorically. Even the tiniest hint of it is something that I think must be dismissed promptly and categorically.

The other point I want to make concerns a phrase and statistic used in Senator Fielding’s speech. It was about the Family Court being the worst place for Australia’s children. It is certainly not a place that any of us wants to end up. No-one wants to end up in any circumstance where that has to be the way the final decision is made as to how a child’s future is determined with regard to contact with their parents. But it is not the fault of the Family Court that those situations develop. It is the role of the Family Court to try to make those difficult decisions when those situations occur. But, to suggest—as has been done—that, because only 2.5 per cent of residence orders are for joint parenting, therefore in every other circumstance a child has lost a parent, I think is not only misleading but also blatantly false.

To then follow it with the statement that we are in danger of creating a stolen generation is moving into the territory of very inflammatory language. That is the sort of thing that we really need to try to avoid in this debate. I will not move across into the facts, realities and history of the stolen generation and the deliberate government-sanctioned removal of children from their parents solely on the basis of their children’s skin colour. But to try to tie the immensely difficult decisions of the Family Court process about future contact between children and their parents because the parents cannot work it out for themselves with that past disgraceful practice is disgraceful in itself. It is language that we should not be bringing into this debate because it is a completely inaccurate representation of the situation that happens now and it is also a very offensive linkage to one of the more appalling practices in our nation’s history. It belittles and diminishes the reality of that appalling practice that occurred in the past.

Having said that, I look forward to the committee stage of the debate. I hope it can be conducted in a way that does try to maintain a measured approach to the difficult issues. In the intervening period, before we get to the committee stage, I certainly urge all senators and those in the community who are interested in this debate to read the Senate committee report that was tabled today. It is comprehensive and a genuine attempt by all senators, I think, to engage with this difficult issue. There are many recommendations in there to further improve this legislation. I hope people take them seriously and approach the legislation from that perspective.

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I thank senators for their contributions to the debate on this very important subject. The Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2006 represents the most significant reform of the family law system in 30 years. It will change the way post-separation disputes are resolved, so that better outcomes are achieved for Australian children. The amendments underpin the government’s commitment of nearly $400 million over four years to provide increased services to help couples resolve conflicts and agree about parenting arrangements.

I note that this bill has been the culmination of a great deal of work—in fact, a number of years work—by a large number of people. I would like to place on record on behalf of the government the appreciation of the work done by colleagues from both sides of politics who have been involved in the development of this legislation. The government has consulted extensively throughout the development of the family law reforms both within the legal profession and the larger community. The bill is the result of listening and responding to the views of a wide range of people on how the family law system can deliver better outcomes for Australian families. Recently we had the Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee review this bill. I note that the report was handed down last Friday, 24 March 2006. As I recall, some 16 recommendations were made, and the government is of course considering those recommendations.

This bill reflects the government’s desire to change the culture around family breakdown and to ensure that as many children as possible grow up in a safe environment with the love and support of both their parents. It is clear from this debate that everyone agrees that the best interests of the child in each individual case should continue to be the paramount consideration in making parenting orders. This bill provides that.

The bill also recognises the benefit to most children of knowing both of their parents and having both of their parents involved in their upbringing. The bill ensures that children have a right to a meaningful relationship with both parents and that parents will generally continue to share responsibility for their children after they separate. This responsibility will be shared in an equal sense. The bill also encourages parents to sit down together to work out what is best for their children, rather than fighting it out in the courts. This is more likely to create an environment where both parents are able to maintain a meaningful relationship with their children. The bill also reinforces the primary importance of ensuring that children live in an environment where they can be safe from violence or abuse. A number of provisions in the bill ensure improved case management and protection for cases involving allegations of family violence and abuse. These are very significant changes.

In addition, on 26 February this year the Attorney-General announced the launch of the government’s Family Law Violence Strategy. The strategy will support the changes to the law by focusing on ensuring that allegations of family violence and child abuse raised in family law proceedings are handled quickly, fairly and properly. In particular, the strategy will provide a better understanding of how these important cases are managed. The government also wants to improve coordination with the states and territories, which are responsible for investigation of family violence and child protection. The government will seek to ensure that information on investigations by state and territory agencies is available to allow courts to make better decisions and to provide better outcomes for our children. The Family Law Violence Strategy is directed at improving process, not about reviewing legislative definitions. It complements this legislation and other family law reforms being undertaken by the government.

The government’s reforms to child support, announced on 28 February this year, are the other important elements of the government’s reforms to the family law system. Those changes will progressively implement the report of the ministerial task force on child support entitled The best interests of children and will support shared parenting by recognising the contributions both parents make to the care of their child. We have a holistic approach to the reforms based upon the new family relationship centres and other services, these reforms to the Family Law Act and the major changes to child support. This bill delivers a fairer, faster system for the benefit of Australian families.

Debate (on motion by Senator Ellison) adjourned.