Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Thursday, 12 February 2004) . . Page.. 279 ..

appropriate, that what she is trying to do is a good thing and that not mentioning a dozen other groupings in the motion is not a problem. You cannot. You cannot be all things to all people. I do agree with the sentiment of her motion and including a million other things in there tends to water down the issue. In this case, the issue is fathers.

I am personally concerned with some cases that have been brought to my attention by fathers after the breakdown of their marriages, regarding custody issues. The amount of time that they are given with their children and the emotional problems that surround those custody issues affect the mothers, the fathers and the children. However, in our attempt to do the right thing by women—and I agree fully with what Ms Tucker said—

It being 45 minutes after the commencement of Assembly business, the debate was interrupted in accordance with standing order 77. Ordered that the time allotted to Assembly business be extended by 30 minutes.

MRS CROSS: I have had a number of very traumatised people coming to see me after the breakdown of their marriages to discuss the custody issues. In this instance I felt extreme empathy with the fathers because, despite the fact that the marriage breakdown was a serious matter, the court awarded the mothers, in the two cases, complete custody. The fathers get to see the children every second weekend. If the mother chooses to go away on vacation and give the child to the father for, say, 10 days, and the father has worked his leave out and taken time to spend time with the child, the mother can change her mind and there is no recourse for the father. At times, I have great concerns with the inequity of custody, which disadvantages fathers.

As I said, I agree with Ms Tucker: there has been a reason, over many decades, to address the inequity affecting women; the role of women in society; the role of women running businesses, countries and corporations and the role of women in government. These are issues that still have to be addressed because they involve inequity. In this country, we still do not earn the same amount as men. We still have a 15 to 20 per cent disparity in salaries and that is something that has to be addressed. Once again, I support the sentiment and the principle of Mrs Burke’s motion, but I cannot support its reference to a committee at this stage.

MR CORNWELL (11.31): It is interesting to note that the gender balance of speakers in this debate has been quite equitable. Four women and four men have been involved in it, which perhaps indicates something. Unfortunately, much of the criticism of Mrs Burke’s motion has not been directed to the motion at all. Her motion talks about fathers, not about men. Mrs Cross acknowledged that and so did, in part, Ms Tucker. I was interested to note the references that were made to the stress that was placed upon men, and indeed women, but as far as I can see, this has nothing to do with the motion.

Mrs Burke mentioned the statistics. She even spoke about the attention the federal Labor Party leader has paid to the role of fathers in marriage, in bringing up children, in reading to children. Whether you accept that a prime minister of the country can be elected exclusively on the ability to read to children is perhaps a matter for another debate. But the fact is that the federal Labor leader regards it as important.

We know that there is a need for more male teachers in schools. We know that a lot of men—and that includes fathers—do suicide. We know—and I thank Mrs Cross for

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .