Download Fragment

Monday, 30 May 2011
Page: 5004

Mr McCLELLAND (Barton—Attorney-General) (13:40): The government again rejects the opposition's proposed amendments—that is, to omit items 18, 20, 26 and 27, which deal with the additional considerations as to determination of the best interests of the child.

The government's proposal finds support not only in the report of Professor Chisholm, which was referred to—the Family Courts Violence Review—but also in the Family Law Council's family violence report and the Evaluation of the 2006 family law reforms by the Australian Institute of Family Studies. If the opposition were to examine the submissions to the Senate inquiry, they would see that key stakeholders and the family law experts, including those to which I have referred, support this proposal.

Following my department's public consultation on the exposure draft, the government responded to concerns raised about the proposed repeal of section 60CC(3) and (4) and (4A). Accordingly, we adjusted this measure to ensure that any disincentives to disclosing violence are removed while at the same time healthy child-parenting relationships continue to be encouraged. In saying that the friendly parent provisions may discourage disclosure, Professor Chisholm said:

... the appropriate message might be that the parent needs first to make sure the children are safe. There may still be a need to try and preserve some benefit from the children’s relationship with the other parent, but it should not compromise the children’s safety.

That is essentially the philosophy of this proposal. The government's amendment bill is an important measure that will encourage victims of violence to speak up for their children. I urge all members of the House to support the government's initiatives and, on that basis, reject the opposition's proposed amendments. Question put:

That the amendments be agreed to.

The House divided. [13:46]

(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)

Question negatived.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. Peter Slipper ): Order! It being past 1.45 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. Are there any statements by honourable members?