| Connolly (Lib) | Crawford (ALP) | Tuckey (Lib) | Tickner (ALP) | McGauran (NP) | Cleeland (ALP) | Wilson (Lib) | Blanchard (ALP) | Cameron (Lib) | Harvey (ALP) | Blunt (NP) | Lavarch (ALP) | Sullivan (Lib) | history project | CSAWatch main page |
Title: CHILD SUPPORT BILL 1987
Date: 16 February 1988
Speaker: Tickner Mr R.E. (HUGHES, ALP, Government)
Source: House
Mr TICKNER (Hughes)(5.13) --I was very interested in the contribution made by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), and I might refer to that in a few moments. Before doing so, I should set the scene on the legislation before the House. The Child Support Bill is, of course, the centrepiece of the Government's child support scheme. It is a further significant initiative in the Government's strategy to ensure that no child need live in poverty by 1990. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made that commitment in the course of the last Federal election campaign. Some people rather cynically suggested that it was a trite statement, a statement without substance which was not going to be honoured by this Government. Of course, that was never the case. The commitment of the Prime Minister and the Labor Government was a very real one which was reaffirmed by the overwhelming vote of the Labor Caucus at one of its first meetings following the election. Caucus adopted the following motion that I put before it:
That Caucus welcomes and unites behind the Prime Minister's stated first goal of the Third Hawke Labor Government announced in the campaign policy launch that by 1990 no Australian child will be living in poverty.
I also asked that Caucus request detailed proposals for the implementation of that goal to be brought forward and that all Ministers and relevant policy committees focus on that first goal as a priority in Government decision making. There can be no higher goal. I would have hoped that it was the sort of goal that would unite both sides of this Parliament. The Labor Caucus certainly unanimously supported that prime ministerial commitment. I am very proud, as are my colleagues, to be associated with the Bill before the House, which gives a further tangible commitment to that already announced goal.
I am sure, as the honourable member for O'Connor mentioned in his contribution, that honourable members have at some time or other in the course of their electorate work or perhaps in their own family network witnessed the personal tragedy associated with family breakdown. When only couples are involved, in the majority of cases adults are able to overcome their personal losses and involve themselves in their work, career and lives. Perhaps they are able to rebuild their temporarily shattered existences. But the bottom line, of course, is that just two people, not children are involved.
In this legislation we are concerned with the tragic cases in which children are involved in a broken relationship. We believe that it is the legal right of every Australian child who is the victim of a marriage breakdown to have the support of both parents. It is, as other speakers have said, a sad indictment that more than 70 per cent of parents who no longer live with their children do not pay regular maintenance. This Government has been forced to legislate on an issue that I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, knowing your compassion in these matters, we believe ought to be the subject of actions of personal conscience on the part of the party who should be paying maintenance. But the reality is that that has not happened. As a result, the failure of non-custodial parents to pay maintenance contributes to the reliance by sole parents on social security support. There are now more than 250,000 sole-parent families, with 450,000 children, who are forced to rely on pensions or benefits from the social security system. For most of these families the pension or benefit is the only source of income. The further tragedy is that in the vast majority of cases the non-custodial parent is employed and would be able to contribute to his or her children's support.
This Bill-the Child Support Bill-as stage one of a two-stage reform, gives the children of separated parents the right to grow up free from the misery of poverty. Whatever the reason for family breakdown or the split-up of a family-and the reasons are, of course, many and varied, ranging from developing incompatibility to perhaps pressing financial worries as a result of young couples taking on too many commitments or as a result of long term suffering by those families who live in the shadow of an environment of alcohol or drug abuse-it is a matter of great regret for those who are involved.
I was disappointed, if one can ever be disappointed with a contribution from the honourable member for O'Connor, that the honourable member sought, in a rather half-hearted way, to make some political capital out of the tragedy of family breakdown. The brutal reality is that those pressures that I have alluded to are not the fault of any government but are primarily due to the changing nature of society, not just in Australia but, indeed, around the world. Of course, the Opposition parties do not have a monopoly on concern about those questions. In fact, the evidence is that it is we on this side of the chamber who have sought to build an Australian society which would minimise the trauma of family breakdown by trying to tackle the issues that are so often the cause and at the heart of family breakdown.
The honourable member for O'Connor also made a cheap political gibe suggesting that the level of taxation kept people in poverty. Let me meet that argument by pointing out the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) figures of which the honourable member ought to be aware, and if he is aware of them he ought to have the decency to talk about them in this House. Those figures show that the level of taxation in Australia is low compared with the levels of other OECD countries. We are almost at the bottom of the list. The tragedy is, of course, that the honourable member for O'Connor and all those who share his philosophy of dramatic cuts in government expenditure, who support the unrestrained privatisation of government assets and the transfer of expenditure from the public sector to the private sector, will exacerbate problems of poverty and the great disparity that exists between rich and poor in this country. The reality is that if one effects dramatic reductions in taxes-and it sounds very good at election time-there is a down side to the equation and that is that one has to bring about massive reductions in government expenditure. Where does one cut? One must cut hospitals, schools, roads and a whole range of community services. In reply to the honourable member for O'Connor, who raised this question in his contribution, let me say that his political philosophy would bring about a further disparity of wealth in this country and would hit the poor and middle income earners harder because the social infrastructure which gives us the quality of life to which we have been accustomed is only possible through public expenditure for the good of the Australian people.
Having met that argument, I return to the theme of my contribution-that is, that it certainly is the case that in the past there was a different social structure which was more family oriented and there were built-in mechanisms which enabled greater support to be given in the case of a marriage breakdown. I regret that there is not more family support and that we do not have a greater sense of community and compassion in this country. I know that that view is shared by the Minister. But the reality is that those days have passed. It is no longer possible for families in times of split up always to go home to Mum and Dad. Now single parents often live alone and in poverty with disastrous consequences for the children. The changes that have occurred make it necessary for the Government to take this initiative and I certainly acknowledge that it is a far-reaching reform.
The highlights of the Child Support Bill are the establishment of a Child Support Register to be administered by the Child Support Registrar; the creation of a child support debt whereby periodic child and/or spousal maintenance formally payable by a payer to a payee under an order or agreement becomes a debt due by the payer to the Commonwealth and the removal of any entitlement of the payee to enforce that debt. A further aspect of the Bill is that as far as practicable the collection of periodic child and/or spousal maintenance by means of automatic deductions from the salary or wages of employees is based closely on the existing pay as you earn provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act. Another aspect is the collection of periodic child and/or spousal maintenance by means of direct remittance on a monthly basis by the payer where automatic withholding does not or cannot apply, and the payment of maintenance collected by the Child Support Registrar to payees by the Secretary to the Department of Social Security. Also included in the Bill is a provision for the recovery of maintenance that becomes unpaid only during the time the liability is payable to the Commonwealth. Further, there will be penalties for employers and payers for various offences such as the late payment of maintenance and failing to provide information to the Registrar. Importantly-and I speak as one who has a great regard for the rights of the individual-there will be a system of objection and appeal rights for parties affected by the liability to the Commonwealth. Thus, one can see that the scheme of this legislation is that under the Constitution, the Australian Government is able to use its family law and social security powers to integrate a national system to ensure an effective method of collection whereby no Australian child will be disadvantaged.
As I have said, in the past the burden has fallen on the taxpayer to support children affected by family breakdown through the social security system with non-custodial parents, in the majority of cases, not meeting their responsibilities. The Government considers that this compulsory system envisaged by the legislation is the only way that children will receive the support to which they are entitled. Because the system is involuntary we must weigh up whether the common good is served by the initiation of such a scheme. On balance I believe it is because of the paramount rights of the child and because of those comprehensive appeals and objection rights to which I have already referred. I should add that there are strict secrecy provisions which are a key element of the legislation.
Children are the innocent victims of family breakdown. Whilst the Government can do little to prevent this in the short term, it has become its responsibility to ensure that children are properly cared for. It will no longer be a matter of choice on the part of the non-custodial parents as to whether they will support their children, but an unquestionable and undeniable right on the part of the child that this support should be forthcoming. I remind the House that with more than half the 800,000 children in poverty belonging to sole parent families and more than 70 per cent of non-custodial parents having families whose only source of income is pension and benefits, one can readily see the need for the Government to take urgent action in introducing the legislation. The level of child support awarded by the courts or agreed upon by parents has often proved totally inadequate when compared with the cost of raising children. This matter will be partly addressed by the provisions contained in the Family Law Amendment Bill whereby child support will be given priority over all other commitments of parents, other than those necessary for their own support. As I have said, this is stage one of the reform.
The second stage of the child support scheme, to be introduced at a later date, will introduce a new way of determining the level of child maintenance payments. The issue of what type of child support formula should be introduced is currently under review by a committee chaired by a judge of the Family Court and with further community input. The committee will report to the Government and be acted upon early in the new year. I will continue on the general theme of my earlier remarks; that is, that this Bill is very much directed towards the welfare of Australian children. It is squarely in line with the commitment by this Government to eliminate child poverty by 1990. It also fits squarely within this Government's continuing commitment to honour the national social justice strategy and commitments of the Australian Labor Party.
I heard with great approval the comments by the honourable member for Forde (Ms Crawford) in her speech. The honourable member for O'Connor did not serve his own interests or those of his Party by attempting to disparage the very deep commitment and compassion expressed by the honourable member for Forde in her remarks to the House. I conclude on the note that this is a Bill about social justice. It is about the Labor Party's reason for being in government and we are very proud to see it come before the House today.
Title: CHILD SUPPORT BILL 1987
Date: 16 February 1988
Speaker: McGauran Mr P.J. (GIPPSLAND, NP)
Interjector: Mr Howe; Mr Sciacca; Mr
Source: House
Mr McGAURAN (Gippsland)(5.29) --I do not want to get ahead of myself in making a contribution to the debate on the second reading of the Child Support Bill, but there is one matter that I wish to address quickly while the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner), who has just spoken, remains in the chamber. I get a little tired of honourable members from the Left faction, of which the honourable member for Hughes is one, bleating about civil liberties and the rights of the individual. On many occasions I have heard the honourable member for Hughes raise, quite sincerely, issues of civil liberties which concern him, such as South Africa, the Palestinian problem in Israel and certain individuals, including the refuseniks from the Soviet Union. I am therefore puzzled why the honourable member for Hughes and other Labor speakers do not hone in on what is, in my view, a central defect in the Child Support Bill-I hasten to add that I largely endorse, in fact heartily support the Bill-and that is the compulsory deduction of maintenance automatically from the salary or wage of non-custodial parents. By that I mean that the child support agency will deduct the maintenance, without any breach of maintenance agreements, from a non-custodial parent's wage or salary.
Where is the protection of a non-custodial parent's rights if he-or, naturally, in some cases she-is a decent, honest, responsible person fully prepared to accept his or her responsibilities to the children of the marriage? Why are we lumping together all non-custodial parents as irresponsible defaulters? Notwithstanding the secrecy provisions of this legislation, which make it an offence for a Commonwealth officer, or an employer who must make the deductions, to pass on to the child support agency within the Australian Taxation Office information concerning individuals which should be kept secret, the reality is that in many organisations, particularly in medium sized or small businesses, a non-custodial parent's maintenance payments will be widely known. In a number of small businesses a lot of people handle the wages. There may be a turnover of staff and a new paymaster brought in. I know of businesses in which there is a roster system of people to prepare the wages. It simply will not be possible to contain the spread of knowledge of a non-custodial parent's maintenance obligations. Therefore, where is the privacy in that regard? No matter how well one tries to legislate for that privacy, it will not occur in all cases. In fact, in a majority of cases there is a very serious risk that a person's privacy will be impinged. Moreover, I ask the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe): Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence over guilt in this country? Again, I ask the Minister: Why should we assume that all non-custodial parents will default on their maintenance responsibilities?
In the Minister's second reading speech he stated two things. Firstly, he stated that the overseas experience was that within two years of a maintenance agreement there was default. That is a little woolly; he says nothing more than that, and produces no figures or sources to back up that claim. Of course, I accept that there is default in over 50 per cent of maintenance agreements. The second thing the Minister said in his speech which is of great interest on this point was that 70 per cent of non-custodial parents did not pay regular maintenance for their children. What about the other 30 per cent? Is not the corollary of 70 per cent not paying maintenance that 30 per cent do pay regular maintenance? The Minister, in his understandable desire to ensure a faultless system, has gone too far. I call upon the Government to give a non-custodial parent the right-I believe the inherent right-to prove his or her responsibility. It is not a matter of being naive. If the Minister likes to say that 70 per cent will default, I accept that. But there must be a large number of people, if not in percentage terms at least in numerical terms, who deserve to be trusted to adhere to their responsibilities without the compulsion of this legislation. I am very disappointed that the Minister, who claims to be a civil libertarian, has drawn up such a draconian and all-encompassing provision. I look forward to the Minister's response at the conclusion of the second reading debate.
The Minister in his second reading speech started off by decrying the state of child poverty and the breakdown of marriage in our community; we all share those concerns. But he goes on to say that a government can do very little about this. I was quite horrified by the admission of the Minister with responsibility for social security abdicating responsibility, not just in his area but on the part of a government overall. Of course, one cannot lay all the blame for society's problems at the feet of government, although many people will try to, just as one cannot turn to government to provide the solutions to those same ills. But I do not agree that there is very little, to use the Minister's words, that can be done about the problem. For instance, what is the Government doing about pre-marriage counselling? I will tell honourable members what it is doing; it is drastically reducing the funding available for pre-marriage counselling. It has dropped over the years, as the Budget Papers show.
Reform of family law is proceeding at a snail's pace for two reasons. The first relates to the mechanics; there is not sufficient staff available to process the contested cases. Secondly, there has not been a review by this Government-at least none that has resulted in an amendment to the Family Law Act-to address the fundamental problems, such as fault and the length of time necessary to obtain a divorce.
The Government is running away too fast from its proper responsibilities. It can influence, at least indirectly, the institution of marriage in our society. What is the Government doing about video pornography? Look at the Minister smiling smugly; he is dismissing these remarks out of hand. Government members wonder why they are out of touch. Every member of this Parliament--
Mr Howe --I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Frankly, the question of video pornography, which I am sure is a matter of great concern to many members of this House, is not relevant--
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) --I take it that the Minister is raising the question of relevance. The Chair will accept a brief allusion to matters appertaining to the family situation and consequential separations as having a passing relevance. I will hear the honourable member in that respect, without his unduly pressing it.
Mr McGAURAN --I will draw to a rapid conclusion on that matter: X-rated videos are flooding the various States, despite each of the States having restricted categories, because the Australian Capital Territory, which falls within the direct jurisdiction of the Federal Government, allows X-rated videos. The Joint Select Committee on Video Material, dealing with pornography and associated matters, has not reported since it was formed in 1985. Of course, a government can take the lead in matters affecting marriage and the family churches, parental authority and the education system all have an influence on the status and viability of marriage; there is no question about that. But I find it astounding that a senior Government Minister would decry the problem of family breakdown and say that it is not a real responsibility of government.
The objectives of the legislation have been well stated by previous speakers. They are to make non-custodial parents responsible, at long last, for their children so long as they have an ability to meet those obligations to pay the maintenance. Until now in many cases the payment of maintenance has meant only adding to the amount of social security benefits so as to make up a livable income for a custodial parent. As a practitioner in the area of family law-for a short time, I hasten to add-before I entered this Parliament, it was a common practice for my colleagues and I go to the magistrates court soon after a separation, normally with the wife having custody of the children pending a custody hearing. We would then negotiate with our opposite number.
Mr Deputy Speaker, until now I have tolerated some of the rather smart and unnecessary comments from the Minister's advisers, but I certainly do not intend to accept supercilious grinning while a member of this chamber is speaking.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER --Order! The Chair did not observe the alleged offence but feels bound to remind ministerial advisers that their attendance in the House requires total circumspection.
Mr McGAURAN --It would be a common practice for the solicitors for the two parties to negotiate from the premise of the value of the pension available. When I was practising the pension was $120 for a wife and two children. We would then negotiate a living allowance which would probably be $160 or $170 a week. Therefore, the non-custodial parent-to continue the analogy, the father-would be required to pay only another $40 or $50. The simple fact is that one's clients' nerves would be at a raw edge. They would often be temperamental. It is not for lawyers to lecture clients about their entitlements. If they were automatically entitled to a pension, of course in that heated environment in which lawyers are trying to do the best for their clients, one would require only a top-up to make a livable allowance.
The amendment to the Family Law Act which now disqualifies a court from taking into account the eligibility for social security benefit is a major reform. I am delighted that at long last that amendment has come about. However, my question to the Minister for Social Security is: Why has it taken so long? The Government has been in power for almost five years. The former Attorney-General, Senator Peter Durack, in the Senate in 1983 introduced an amendment to achieve that same objective. That was passed by the Senate. It has lain on the House of Representatives Notice Paper since that time.
I understand why a child support agency would take so long to put into operation. I think that the time it has taken has been needlessly long, but I understand all the difficulties and complications surrounding that. However, frankly, hundreds of millions of dollars has been wasted in the intervening period-between the passing of Senator Durack's amendment and the amendment late last year of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). If the Government had forced the courts to disregard pension entitlements and forced non-custodial parents to pay a living allowance by way of maintenance, it would have had a lot of defaulters. I do not suggest for a moment that that would have been the answer. However, I have no doubt that certainly it would have saved the taxpayer a great amount of money.
I wish now to address the matter of child poverty. Other speakers have drawn on the figures given in the Minister's second reading speech in which it was stated that there are some 800,000 children in poverty of whom more than 400,000 are part of a sole parent family-if I can use that phrase. This legislation is a step in the right direction. It will at long last do something to turn back the poverty that afflicts so many people. It is not the whole answer. I do not think the Minister or the Government would pretend that it is. If one takes away the court's calculation of a pension as a starting point and examines the non-custodial parent's financial status in order to arrive at a living allowance, one will save the taxpayer money.
However, it will inject a great deal more tension and heat into the family law system. I have acted for fathers whose wives may well have left, taking the children-whether for good reason or not; this is not the time or place to go into why people leave each other. Such people are normally bitter. Normally, they have to face court fairly quickly after the separation because the wife and the children have no income. They are very difficult to handle. I am concerned that unless the Government also addresses some of the problems of the Family Court of Australia, particularly in regard to the delays that are being encountered, there is a risk of increased violence. I have no doubt at all that at long last forcing non-custodial parents to face up to their responsibilities is going to inject new heat into the Family Court.
Unless the Government drags people who have had it too easy in the past into a position of finally having to face up to their financial obligations and responsibilities to their children and at the same time makes the Family Court more efficient, a number of risks will be run.
Mr Sciacca --We are making it more efficient.
Mr McGAURAN --In reply to the honourable member for Bowman I say that it will be a slow process. As I said earlier, the Government really only has addressed some of the mechanics, the administrative aspects, of the Family Court. We need also to look at the legislation because delays are still being encountered. I have a number of constituents in my electorate who, frankly, are going out of their minds with frustration at some of the delays in contested custody and property matters. I have had to write to the Attorney-General about one property matter in particular because it has been delayed for some three or four years, with no prospect of it being heard before June because of a shortage of judges at the Dandenong Family Court.
I ask the Government not to pretend for a moment that any real changes have occurred in the family law system for some years. For the Government to do so will mean that the disrespect, to say the least, in which the Family Court is held will increase. The potential for violence, which is always part of this sort of jurisdiction, will be turned up. Like my Opposition colleagues, I welcome almost every aspect of this legislation. I do not agree with the compulsory deduction of maintenance payments regardless of default. Moreover, I do not think the Government has yet grasped the enormity of the problem surrounding the Family Court itself.