McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill. While we have had discussion about the 2014 reforms I actually want to put a lot of my focus on the children when I do my speech here today.In 2014 there were major reforms that had occurred to the family justice system. The intent was to have a system that was also recognising the needs of our children as they navigate their way through the Family Court system. The kids often find themselves caught in the middle of family disputes and it's through no fault of their own but rather the circumstances of a breakdown in the family relations—situations for which the children have no control situations where there is absolutely no understanding in some cases of what is happening or why it is happening. For this reason they need to have support and the reforms showed that they were not getting that.It was hoped that the Family Dispute Resolution service would be able to assist and I am sure that in some cases they probably have. However a review was also undertaken in May 2018 and that review found that there were still some areas that need work and these require legislative changes. The review identified areas that they hoped would help our children to understand what's happening to them what's happening to their families and importantly what role these complete strangers are playing in their lives. Their lives have been turned upside down by broken relationships and they have become the by-product of those breakdowns. In order to recognise their needs and to hear their voices and acknowledge that the kids are actually caught up in this institution that is the Family Court justice system we have to legislate that ability further.In select committee we had discussions on lawyers being appointed based on their cultural background. While I acknowledge this and I agree with the chairperson's account about making sure that we have the best persons appointed for the children and to represent them I do not agree that a lawyer with the specific cultural background similar or the same as the child that's caught up in this system is necessarily going to be the best advocate for that child. We should be ensuring that we appoint the best people who can understand the needs of the child and the appointed counsel should be the best one suited for that child regardless of their race their culture or their colour.I'm going to get to the stocktake now. I think stocktake is really important. After the 2014 reform we did have some changes implemented that were not based on what was workable but rather on what was thought to deliver the better outcomes. Having a stocktake to assess what works and what doesn't is therefore essential. It's not ideal that we get under way without a full stocktake having already happened but we have to make sure that we don't delay any further and legislate in a way that the children can be cared for and respected while that stocktake takes place.When the Green member mentioned that there were tests that were missing that she was concerned about I'm sure that the stocktake will actually take that into account and address some of the issues that she raised there about family violence assessment. I don't think that in this case it would be a trial and error process and I don't think that it would be detrimental to a child. We found over many decades however this system has worked and hasn't worked that we have to make sure that we get it right and we can only do that by implementing regimes and then figuring out what is actually working best for our children and what's bringing the best results.This now brings me to the start date. I would think that allowing a staged implementation of processes by way of Order in Council by the Governor-General once the tools and the guidance have been established is actually quite important. We have an option of either implementing it two years after the Royal assent but that would possibly restrict us to not implementing something that is not ready or implementing something in a rush pushing through something that's not ready because it's actually attached to a deadline.The intent of this bill is to allow for children to be given reasonable opportunities and so if we can start to implement by Order in Council when we have this stocktake those rules and guidelines in place I think that would be better and beneficial for the children. We want them to be able to partake in discussions about what's happening to them and we need to make sure we have those tools ready to undertake that task manufacture them to the best of the ability for the children and then be ready to allow it to happen when those tools are actually fit for purpose.On one hand it's important that those children who understand what's going on are given the opportunity to have a say in the outcome of their living situations but on the other hand there is concern that children could potentially be used by arguing parents to sway outcomes and that younger or less mature children may find this process stressful. It could be confusing for them and the potential for anxiety to arise when a child feels that they have to choose between one parent or another is not something that we should be supporting through legislation. So as to allowing the voices of our children to be heard it's worded as an opportunity and we need to ensure that very clear guidelines are in place to make sure that the children are not adversely affected by good intentions to give them their voice.In determining who should be given the opportunities the recommendation has been made to change the wording within the bill from age and maturity" to "is capable of forming their own views". In my humble opinion that is too broad. As a mother of four my kids have all been able to form their own views at a very early age and not all their views actually made sense nor were they made for the right reasons. I still think that age and maturity mean a lot here and should not be removed.Clause 9 of the bill would remove one of the lawyer's duties to promote conciliation and we agree with this change. The parents' lawyers can have that role. The role of the children's lawyers should be to look after the children not the circumstances that got those children into the family justice system in the first place. Our children must come first. Giving children opportunities to participate in these decisions will affect them in a positive step but ensuring that they understand what is going on in this new and often frightening world that they are thrust into is an essential step. We commend this bill to the House."