House of Reps proceedings 16 February 1988 part 4

House of Reps proceedings 16 February 1988 part 4

Title: CHILD SUPPORT BILL 1987
Date: 16 February 1988
Speaker: Cleeland Mr P.R. (MCEWEN, ALP, Government)
Interjector: Mr McGauran
Source: House

Mr CLEELAND (McEwen)(5.47) --I suppose that it is not entirely appropriate for me to give advice to a young, keen National Party member who seeks ministerial office. But, if I can give the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) some advice as someone who is a bit older, it would be that maybe he would care to read the legislation before coming into the House, maybe he would care to read the second reading speech before coming into the House and maybe he would care to do some preparatory work before he stands up and speaks in this place. I am sure that his ministerial ambitions have been severely dented by his making that most appalling speech which would have been heard by other members of his Party.

His speech was notable for its lack of any research at all. His speech was notable for the fact that it was obvious that he had not read the legislation in the first place. His speech ranged far and wide over all sorts of topics except the content of the Child Support Bill. I ask the honourable member to go away and do some reading to learn about this Bill and to learn about what the Government is doing. I suggest that he then come back into this place and try to debate us.

Mr McGauran --You are making a fool of yourself.

Mr CLEELAND --And then he may not make such a fool of himself. The reality is that the Child Support Bill does not represent a sudden whim on the part of the Government to introduce a part piece of legislation to tackle a part problem involving child support and maintenance as it now exists in Australia. This Bill is part of a series of pieces of legislation which will come into the House this year as part of a total package tackling the whole problematical area involving child maintenance-and problematical it indeed is.

I was horrified to hear the honourable member for Gippsland talking about the way he sees people-lawyers, for example-in the Family Court of Australia utilising the child support assistance paid by the Commonwealth as part of the package that children should receive on the separation of parents. He was quite right in that regard. The reality is-I speak from experience, as a practising lawyer who has been involved for many years in the practice of the Family Court-that the tragedy has been, and still is, that in calculating the amount that a wife or a custodial parent should receive by way of maintenance for children the first thing that occurs is that the practitioners say: `The wife will get so much by way of a widow's pension and will receive so much for each child in addition. Let us top it up with a bit from the non-custodial parent'. Traditionally, that is the way it has been done in Australia since the introduction of the Family Law Act in, I think, 1975. It is still being done today.

We hear a lot about economic rationalism from Opposition members. We never hear them apply it in debate but they talk outside this House as though they want to be economic rationalists. This Bill will relieve most Australian taxpayers of paying tax to support other people's children, and that deserves the support of this House. Why should this country have a system which enables non-custodial parents to rely upon the generosity of Australian taxpayers to support their children? That is both economically and morally wrong. It has been going on for a long time. It is most pleasing that when the rest of the legislation comes through and the formula system is introduced-if one had listened to the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) earlier one would have heard him explain the totality of the proposals-we will get to the stage where those non-custodial parents who have evaded their economic and moral obligations for so long will no longer escape the scheme. That is why there is a compulsion about it. If there is no compulsion to pay through a scheme such as this people will escape the net. We know this from history; we know this from past practice.

Mr McGauran --Not all of them; that is the point.

Mr CLEELAND --I suppose the honourable member for Gippsland would say that those judgment debtors who do not pay their debts should be given a chance, and that garnishment as a procedure should not be allowed because garnishment is a compulsion on an employer to deduct from an employee's salary the judgment debt by way of contribution. I suppose the honourable member would say that that is a compulsion which in the language of the Opposition should also have been thrown out because people should not be compelled to pay their due obligations in a moral and economic sense. I dismiss that as ludicrous. I throw it out. I will not have a bar of it. The reality is that fewer than 30 per cent of non-custodial parents are making maintenance payments. That is the fact. We cannot ignore it, and this Parliament should not try to run away from it. To do so is the coward's way out. To do so is to allow a loophole that some people will use. Of course there must be compulsion.

I heard the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), who led for the Opposition, complain that under this legislation employers would have more forms to fill in. I recall hearing this complaint when the fringe benefits tax (FBT) legislation was being discussed. I think we were told that it was a disgrace that under the fringe benefits tax legislation employers would have more forms to fill in and that they would have to pay tax on the fringe benefits they gave their employees. I recall appearing on a television program with a chartered accountant when I made a rather obvious point that employers obviously keep employment records and that if they were not keeping employment records they would not know what they were paying to their employees. The records are there, they are kept and maintained as common business practice. It was one of the great jokes of the whole FBT debate to say that employers were not keeping records of what they were paying employees by way of fringe benefits. The same thing applies to an employee now. Of course employers will have a form to fill in. It is common sense. Will the Opposition suggest that because an employer has to fill in a form we should not introduce this scheme? Is that the rationale of what the Opposition is saying in this regard? Is that all the contribution it has to make to one of the problems it sees? Again, it is a fairly shallow argument.

I note that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bradfield states:

. . . by not requiring these agreements to be registered with the Child Support Agency, except in the event that maintenance arrangements are not being honoured.

The Opposition is saying, by way of this amendment, that it is not a bad idea to have a centralised child maintenance system but that we should give those people who have an obligation to pay maintenance a fair sporting chance for a little while. It is like playing cricket. It is like saying, `Let them bowl a few balls and if they do the right thing we will not compel them. We will not make them register those agreements'. That ignores the fact that, as I have already stated, only 30 per cent of non-custodial parents are paying maintenance now. The Opposition is saying that the people we know are not paying maintenance should ge a sporting chance. It is like playing cricket. The Opposition wants these people to have a sporting chance and to get away with non-payment of maintenance for a longer period. It is a nonsensical amendment and it does the Opposition no credit. It is typical of the Opposition that, when it finds value in Government proposals, by some surreptitious means it puts up an an amendment simply to show that it is different. Whoever thought up this amendment did not put much consideration into it. It is an amendment which is shallow and it does no credit to the Opposition.

The main problem we face with support payments is that the amounts are not enough. To be critical of the Family Court, my experience of it is that not enough detailed examination is made of the ability of a non-custodial parent to make appropriate payments for children. It has been said already in this debate that some 450,000 children in this country who are in sole parent families are in poverty. That we allow this as a nation is wrong. That we have not moved more quickly is an indictment of all parliamentarians in this House. It is nothing new; the Opposition knew about it during its 7 1/2 years in Government and made no effort to do anything about it. The present Minister, to his credit, has gone about making changes in a very appropriate way. He instituted a series of committees. Over 12 months a great deal of effort was put into consultation with all the groups involved to gain their views. I was very fortunate to be one of a small group of backbenchers whom the Minister took into his confidence and used as a sounding board about the areas in which legislative changes were being considered.

It is a disgrace that in this country we have not, I believe, within the court system an appropriate means to delve into the financial background of non-custodial parents. The ease with which people can establish discretionary trusts, the ease with which people can establish exempt proprietary companies, the so-called private companies, the ease with which some employers will give false documentary evidence to reduce the amount of income payable to a particular person in a Family Court case, is disgraceful. In my experience, sometimes there seems to be, much to my shame, almost a male conspiracy-the reality is that most single parents are women; that is a fact-which says that the children of broken marriages or of de facto relationships or of those one night stands which unfortunately result sometimes in the birth of the children, do not really deserve money support from the male parent. I have seen this in practice. I have acted for many males in my family law practice who when it was suggested to them that they had an obligation to their children in money terms, that it was wrong for society to be topping up maintenance to assist their children to lead a decent lifestyle, would rebel against that concept. They would reject it out of hand. They would simply say, `That is not the way to go. The Government gives out money. There is a widow's pension. Let the Government pick up the tab'. I found that viewpoint alarming. I would not say that that attitude applies across the board, but when it surfaces it is horrifying and I think it is wrong. This Parliament, by way of legislation, must ensure that that attitude does not prevail.

This legislation is important. As I said earlier, down the track the Minister will bring in further legislation which will introduce other means of setting forth the amount of maintenance that should be paid. That will get away from the present system where the court is required to spend much time tracking down the shields that are put up on behalf of non-custodial parents to prevent a proper examination being made of what assets are available to provide support for the children. The formula system will ensure that that shield will be very largely broken down and that a more appropriate amount of money is paid for the support of young children.

The honourable member for Gippsland, in talking about compulsion, suggested that every person to whom a maintenance order is applicable would be forced to register the agreement through a centralised agency and that there would be no options at all. I indicated earlier that it is a pity he has not read the legislation. Anyone who has read the legislation and understands it will realise that the provision is not forced on every person entering into a maintenance agreement. It is aimed primarily at those people who receive from the public purse a payment by way of widow's pension for themselves and two children. To ensure that the appropriate amount of money that family should have is calculated and that the public purse is protected, maintenance is to be paid through a centralised agency. The talk about everyone involved in a family breakdown, where there are young children and maintenance has to be paid, being compulsorily forced into the system is a complete and utter nonsense. It does the honourable gentleman no credit to suggest that.

The scheme is compassionate. I know that many people will not find it very attractive. Many people, some of whom live in the north and north-east of Australia and other remote parts of Australia, working in various mining activities will find the legislation absolutely horrifying and frightening. Some men will probably go overseas to avoid it, but the legislation will catch those people who for too long have not taken it upon themselves to exercise the moral and economic responsibility they have to make appropriate payments towards their children and ensure that in future they make appropriate contributions so that their children can live a better quality life, thereby relieving Australian taxpayers of some of the burden of making payments towards those children.

Debate continues.....part 5