Wide law changes detailed by Minister

Press, 17 July 1980, Page 18

Wide law changes detailed by Minister

PA ■ . . Queenstown All that restrictive divorce law could do was increase the incidence of de facto, marriage, said the Minister of Justice (Mr McLay, outlining the Family Proceedings Bill—- — before Parliament’s Statutes Revision Committee to the Family Law Practitioners’ Australasian conference at Queenstown. The bill, among other things, . rewrites the law On divorce. The sole ground for divorce is the irreconcilable break-down of. marriage as evidenced by- two years of living apart. Mr McLay said he . strongly supported the view that fault grounds for divorce were no longer appropriate. The law could not compel married- couples to continue their marriage. “The most it can do is either impede or facilitate the severance of the legal bond,” Mr McLay said. Some critics had said that the new bill would make divorce more difficult for many petitions — the 20 per cent able to obtain a fairly speedy, divorce on the ground of adultery. These critics did not in the main argue that adultery should retain a special, place in the law, Mr McLay said. They were more concerned that an optional basis for divorce which many found convenient was being taken away;The new bill also overhauled 'the law. of’ maintenance. Maintenance for spouses

would be essentially shortterm and rehabilitative. “There will no longer be any room for the notion of a former husband having to provide a meal ticket for life for his former wife,” he said. There were also developments under way in social security law. In the case of a domestic purposes benefit, the State- tried .to off-set the cost of , the benefit by recouping maintenance from the person who was liable to support a family. The amount of maintenance recovered Was small compared with the total cost of the domestic purposes benefit. For the year to March 31, 1980, the outlay on the benefit was $169.5 million, $14.2 million recovered. A scheme was being considered which it was hoped would extract more from the persons primarily liable to pay, Mr McLay said. “There is an uneasy coexistence of private rights and State responsibilities in the area of financial support' for parties involved in marital breakdown.” . Another matter under examination was custody law. “What must be squarely faced is that it is simply beyond the capacity of the law to achieve a satisfactory result in a fiercelycontested dispute. . “If the parents cannot provide an answer themselves there is just no legal answer to what is an intensely personal, human problem,” he said.

In extreme cases, a series of abductions was by no means unknown as parents pursued their unrelenting battles. But the law could be especially useful over international abduction of children. “International co-oper-ation over this problem can avoid much heartbreak and has a very positive role to play in deterring the obnoxious practice of child-snatching.” On other aspects of family law, Mr McLay said, the problem of domestic violence was of immediate practical concern. “When confronted with the sad figure of the battered wife and her frightened children., one feels acutely the impotence of purely legal measures to make much impact,” he said. English and Australian law had recently been experimenting with injunctions to restrain a partner from using violence, or to remove that person from the family home. , , But Mr McLay said he wondered how realistic it was to expect battered women to adopt this means when the slightest move towards obtaining help from the. law was likely to earn them yet another beating. Much more might be needed by way of practical help in helping the wife gain a -respite by removing herself and the children from the physical presence of a violent husband. . , •