Prior to 1975, gaining a divorce in Australia was usually a messy affair. The law in place insisted that marriage breakdown needed to establish a " guilty party " to take responsibility and that person needed to be punished in the asset distribution. It quickly became apparent that the fast way to a decree nisi was to prove that one partner had been sexually unfaithful.
That opened the door to an era of private investigators with cameras snooping around bedroom windows and this became the fare of the " yellow press ". Being named the " guilty party " was anathema to either partners career prospects. Getting divorced was seen as a " social sin ", only partly alleviated if the divorce took the " abandonment "course and both parties lived apart for seven long years.
In 1975 Australia gained "no fault "divorce to be arbitrated by a new institution called "the Family Court ". The idea was that a just and impartial family court judge would grant a divorce on the basis that the couple had irreparable differences and needed to make a fresh start. The court would tend to the welfare of any children of that marriage and would ensure that assets were fairly divided.
Unfortunately, this impartiality has tended to anger those who insist that the guilty party should be named and shamed and this resulted in bombing attacks on family court judges. The government now intends to set up a fresh enquiry into the running of the family court and the main instigator of that enquiry has been Senator Pauline Hanson. She insists that she should be named as co-chair on the enquiry alongside social services minister Kevin Andrews.
Senator Hansen has long campaigned for changes to the family court. There are claims that its decisions heavily favour women in asset distribution and these decisions are biased against men. It is also claimed that the family court seems powerless to protect women against domestic violence. It is the family court that decides access to children after divorce and once again whatever is decided is bogged down in dispute. Rarely is the decision reached agreeable to both interests.
The cost is also a matter of contention. It was intended that the family court would remove divorce from feuding teams of barristers seeking advantage for their client but now there are claims that untruthful evidence is being placed before the court because of this lack of legal accountability. One of the problems facing the political establishment is the uncertainty of just where such an enquiry may end up heading.
Senator Pauline Hanson is a political maverick. She has been a thorn in the side of both sides of politics since she gained a seat in Federal parliament in a wave of support for her views on immigration from Asia. Many people disagree with her views, but on this issue her voice should be heard.
It is quite evident that the family court would be better received as the divorce arbiter if its powers enabled it to widely examine the surrounding spectrum that includes parents and grand parents when deciding the best interests of the children involved. It should also be in the power of the family court to approve the issue and implementation of AVO's where violence is an issue.
This enquiry should not be impeded by political delicacy. The very step of no fault divorce was a huge stride back in 1975. Fine tuning now may make some aspects of politics uncomfortable, but they are urgently needed to achieve a more harmonious society. Senator Hansen should be granted that co-chair position. If this enquiry takes us out of our comfort zone - so be it !
No comments:
Post a Comment