Main page

Mr NEVILLE (Hinkler) (5.19 p.m.)--My grievance tonight is based on three premises: that reforms are needed to the Family Court; that the attitudes of people involved in contact enforcement and child welfare monitoring may need to be finetuned; and that the criteria for access to legal aid must ensure that both sides are treated fairly and equally.

We have just seen in the last week the passing of reforms to the Child Support Act. But, as I said during that debate, I still do not think they have gone far enough, nor have the various clauses in that act addressed one of the main areas of concern, the Family Court. I welcome initiatives in this legislation which allow non-custodial parents to buy clothing and the like and to have that recognised as part of the non-custodial parent's contribution to the welfare of his or her children. I think that when a non-custodial parent is paying school fees or health insurance or for uniforms they should be recognised, because these things are an integral part of a child's overall quality of life. They also ensure that the non-custodial parent develops a pattern of commitment or, put simply, that they have a say in their child's upbringing and the direction of their children's lives.

Returning to the Family Court, I see many instances where one or other party has a case but for a variety of reasons they cannot have access to the court. This is one of the great concerns to me, because it adds to the level of anxiety and frustration with the system which often fuels senseless violence. I see many cases where one parent flagrantly defies court orders in the knowledge that the other parent does not have the means to drag them before the Family Court. Those who do have the means are generally frustrated by the inordinate length of time in having a matter heard. I ask what reasonable chance a non-custodial parent has of establishing and maintaining a healthy ongoing relationship with a young child over a period of time if the period of court wrangling and parent manipulation deprives that other parent of contact for two or three years.

The Attorney-General has raised the proposition of a federal magistracy, established as part of the systemic reform to assist in reducing delays, lack of access and inefficiencies in the Family Court. Magistrates would ideally be located not only in the capital cities but also in the major provincial cities, and they could perhaps go on circuit in country areas. A magistracy would reduce solicitors' expenses, barristers would be less likely to be required, and reduced waiting times would lessen legal costs and would reduce the lost time and wages of litigants.

Access to magistrates in regional areas would reduce the litigants' travel and associated expenses. The deliberate frustration of access could be curbed quickly if a federal magistracy were available for prompt and easy recourse. I repeatedly come across cases in my electorate of custodial parents frustrating court appointed access with relative impunity. In such a situation, a federal magistracy would provide the aggrieved parent with a much quicker and more accessible way of taking action than by referral to the full Family Court.

I will take this further, as I see far too much manipulation by unprincipled custodial parents who concoct a litany of deceits and provocations to deprive non-custodial parents of receiving full court-appointed custody. This includes things like ringing up the night before the access period and saying, `Oh, the children have the flu,' or `I can't afford the airfare or the bus fare--you'll have to pay for it.' Other such deceits include, during the winter holidays, saying, `I can't afford warm clothing for where you live--you'll have to buy it,' or the psychological pressure of saying, `Well, we were taking the kids to the Gold Coast at that time, but if you want to spoil their holidays you can have them.' Still worse is the outright defiance of a court order by simply refusing to send the children and knowing full well that the mechanism by which some form of discipline is exercised is too remote for the non-custodial parent to access.

Those who abide slavishly by the various international declarations and conventions will not like what I am about to say, but I believe that where a custodial parent deprives a non-custodial parent of court appointed custody or access without good reason then for the number of weeks that custody is denied the custodial parent should be deprived of Child Support Agency payments. I feel certain that when some of those manipulative parents realise that a penalty attaches to thumbing their nose at the decisions of the courts, and that their manipulative high jinx might cost them money, many of them would simply comply with the original court decision.

The Bundaberg Men's Support Service is a group of non-custodial parents who feel disaffected with the present system and, in particular, are concerned with the perceived focus of the agencies involved--including legal aid, the Child Support Agency, state family services departments and others. I get similar vibes from Gladstone, which is the other major centre in my electorate. I realise that things are sometimes very difficult for the state and federal family services departments to monitor, but I have witnessed a number of cases where the fine line between caution and inaction is blurred.

When a non-custodial parent is concerned about the treatment of children by the custodial parent, it seems to take a long time to convince the authorities that the children are in danger. I feel at times that I have almost to suggest some portent of imminent doom before action is taken. I firmly believe that the law should be changed to allow state family services departments a more active role in situations where there is the least suggestion of any sort of physical or emotional abuse or neglect.

I have a case which perfectly illustrates the problem with legal aid. Whenever this non-custodial parent seeks legal aid to pull the custodial parent into line and to observe the Family Court's directives, he is frustrated because legal aid is not available to him. But when, after a period of strong suspicion, he identified what appeared to be a prima facie case of abuse against his children and retained them after a visit--having consulted, I might add, the family services department--his former wife had no trouble in getting legal aid and an order which allowed her to pick up the children in a matter of days. For justice to not only be done but be seen to be done, I believe that legal aid must be demonstrated to have an element of equity about it.

Another matter of concern to me is that of DNA testing. Clearly, a lot of parents are deprived of contact with their children because the manipulative custodial parent denies the paternity of the father. Many non-custodial parents cannot afford the $600 or $700 required for a test; therefore, they have to languish in the uncertain knowledge that their child is being kept from them. I firmly believe that there should be a simple mechanism whereby a DNA test could be ordered and, if necessary, means tested.

Whether the actual funding of these tests should be through a special fund administered by Legal Aid--which is what I would prefer--or through the health system is another consideration for the relevant ministers. Equally, it makes sense that non-custodial parents who are escaping their responsibilities by avoiding DNA testing should be brought to book and made to accept their responsibilities. The uncertainty leads to anxiety, unnecessary confrontation and, by children not being kept by the appropriate parent, economic loss to the Commonwealth.

In conclusion, I would like to leave a sobering statistic with the House: in my electorate, 10,146 people are on the books of the Child Support Agency. These people represent about 12 per cent of my constituents, but they make up a staggering 40 per cent to 50 per cent of inquiries to my office. I am not being critical of governments past or present, but it is high time we looked at addressing this issue to provide more equity in people's dealings with the Family Court, legal aid and the Child Support Agency, as well as the various family services departments of the states.

Mr SPEAKER--The question is:

That grievances be noted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.