House of Reps proceedings 16 February 1988 part 6

House of Reps proceedings 16 February 1988 part 6

Title: CHILD SUPPORT BILL 1987: Second Reading
Date: 16 February 1988

Debate resumed.

Title: CHILD SUPPORT BILL 1987: Second Reading
Date: 16 February 1988
Speaker: Blanchard Mr C.A. (MOORE, ALP, Government)
Source: House

Mr BLANCHARD (Moore)(8.41) --I rise in support of the Child Support Bill 1987. There is undoubtedly a fairly wide degree of agreement in this House that Australia's current system of child maintenance is in need of reform. It is a sensitive area which should be dealt with in a sensitive way. There were a number of excellent speeches in this House earlier today from both sides. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), for example, made what I felt to be a constructive contribution to the debate. Whilst I can understand his and the Opposition's concern about voluntary maintenance agreements, I refer him and the Opposition to sub-clause 23 (3) of the Bill, which goes to the heart of the problems the Opposition has in respect of the Bill.

It is possible for certain payees effectively to opt out of the collection of their registerable maintenance liabilities. It seems to be of concern to the Opposition that there is no way to opt out. Sub-clause 23 (3) provides the technical mechanism by which a payee may opt out of the scheme. Basically, a payee need not complete the form required by sub-clause 23 (2) if the payee elects within the 14-day period mentioned in that sub-clause to have the liability enforced under the Bill. However, one proviso attaches to this opting out arrangement. It relates to those in receipt of an income-tested pension, allowance or benefit. So I say to the Opposition that its amendment is not worth the paper it is printed on. We are trying to get to the heart of the matter and to deal with the Opposition's concern.

In 1980 the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act recommended that an agency to collect and enforce maintenance payments be set up along the lines of agencies already operating in South Australia and my own State of Western Australia. Four years later a report of the Attorney-General's Department made detailed recommendations for a national maintenance agency to assist parties to obtain maintenance, to collect it and to take action against defaulters. Unfortunately, neither the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee nor those of the Attorney-General's Department addressed the inadequacy of the current levels of maintenance. The Government, in examining these reports, concluded that it was not cost-effective to set up an independent agency to collect and enforce maintenance payments unless there was some change in how those payments were assessed in the first place.

In the meantime, in 1985 the Family Law Council recognised that increasing the amount of maintenance needs to go hand in hand with a more effective collection system. The Council, in its submissions to the Attorney-General, argued that the amount of maintenance should be determined by administrative rather than judicial means by reference to a formula. The Family Law Council also argued for a right of appeal against administrative decisions, that a child maintenance authority should be established in the Australian Taxation Office, and that maintenance should be collected on pay as you earn lines. As a result of that, a Cabinet subcommittee on maintenance under the chairmanship of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) was formed. In October 1986 that subcommittee issued its report titled Child Support: A discussion paper on child maintenance. It examined the growing incidence of single-parent families. Between 1974 and 1985 the number of such families increased by 73 per cent to 316,000 and the proportion of sole parents on a pension or benefit rose from 65 per cent to 85 per cent. I mention those figures because it is important to realise the depth of the problem in this country today.

Further, the report, not surprisingly, found that the major cause of single-parent families was the breakdown of marriages and de facto relationships. Less than 20 per cent involve births to mothers who have never lived with the father. In other words, in the case of most single-parent families another parent has in the past shared responsibility for child expenses and the care of children. The report also noted the effect of the growth of such families on government payments, expenditure on supporting parents and widow beneficiaries rising by some 245 per cent in the period 1973-74 to 1985-86.

We have already heard in the debate today that supporting parent benefits and allowances are estimated to cost the community $1,509.8m in 1987-88, which happens to be an increase of 10.5 per cent over the previous year. The report also noted that there were two major problems with the current maintenance system. The first is the non-payment of maintenance. Recent figures suggest that less than 30 per cent of custodial parents receive regular cash payments from the other parent. This means, as we have heard in the debate, that 70 per cent are not in receipt of such benefit. Only 10 per cent of unmarried sole parents and 36 per cent of divorced parents receive such payments. It was also estimated that less than half of the court orders were complied with. Secondly, the low level of payments was noted. The taking into account of social security benefits available and the desire to fix payments at a level which would encourage payment were also noted. In other words, there was a subterfuge in the process of awarding such payments.

Department of Social Security data show that most payments received by sole parents on pensions or benefits are between $10 and $30 a week-I think all members of the House agree that that is an abysmally low figure-with two-thirds of the payments being less than $31 a week. These payments are so low that they are under the point at which the income testing arrangements begin to apply and therefore do not reduce the maximum rate of pension. In other words, the state is picking up the responsibilities which should fairly be thrown on to the shoulders of the non-custodial parent.

It should be noted that the low level of periodic payment may, in some cases, hide the true level of support provided by non-custodial parents-for example, payment of mortgages, school fees and other items does occur, although unfortunately there is little available evidence as to its prevalence. However, a study by the Institute of Family Studies found that there was an arrangement for infrequent payments for health, education and other child expenses in only 17 per cent of cases. In 80 per cent of these cases this was additional to a regular arrangement to pay maintenance. It is against this background that the present Bill was evolved.

The major change is the recognition that non-custodial parents have a responsibility to support their children. I do not think any member on either side of this House would disagree with that proposition. This Bill will establish the Commissioner of Taxation as the Child Support Registrar, who will be responsible for the register of maintenance liabilities and the Child Support Register. I think it is important to say that the registers are an important aspect of the scheme in that they will be the basis on which the Registrar will be able automatically to deduct payments from wages or salaries. This will occur where the non-custodial parents fails to make timely maintenance payments.

If we look at the reasons why the Government chose the Australian Taxation Office to perform this important and necessary task-and this has been mentioned by honourable members from both sides of the House-we find, firstly, that the Tax Office, through the pay as you earn system, has an existing relationship with employers; secondly, that the Tax Office can best trace those persons who seek to evade their obligations under the Bill; and finally, that the Tax Office has substantial experience in the enforcement of financial obligations, as most of us as taxpayers well and truly know.

This Bill will succeed if it provides an adequate level of support for children who do not live with both parents. It will ensure the optimal development of the children. This important point has come out in this debate. Everyone who has contributed to the debate realises that the interests of the child are paramount and this is what we are seeking to achieve. In addition, the legislation must ensure equity as between parents in contributing to the financial support of their children. I would like to conclude with the words of Bishop Hollingworth, which I think sum up the nub of the argument:

. . . the real challenge is to collect maintenance in order to make significant net improvements to the living standards of single parents and their children. It would be a pyrrhic victory to reform the maintenance collection system purely to offset existing government expenditure while at the same time leaving the acute poverty problem untouched.

I support the Bill before the House.

Title: CHILD SUPPORT BILL 1987: Second Reading
Date: 16 February 1988
Speaker: Cameron Mr D.M. (MORETON, LP)
Source: House

Mr DONALD CAMERON (Moreton)(8.55) --The Opposition has moved this amendment in relation to the motion for the second reading of the Child Support Bill:

That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

`whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House wishes to ensure the protection of the rights of non-custodial parents who have entered into maintenance arrangements to share in the cost of supporting their children at no extra cost to the Commonwealth, by not requiring these agreements to be registered with the Child Support Agency, except in the event that maintenance arrangements are not honoured'.

In supporting the Opposition spokesman, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), I suggest that this is a most reasonable amendment on our part and I hope that the Government considers it in that light. The subject that we are discussing in relation to this Child Support Bill is one that has to be viewed in the context of changes. Until the mid-1960s, a little under 6 per cent of children were born outside wedlock. Today about 16 per cent of all births are outside wedlock. That information comes from the Department of Social Security statistics section. It indicates that the number of never married mothers in receipt of a supporting parent's benefit has increased from 13,500 in 1974 to 45,000 in 1987. This is a trebling of the number which existed in 1974 at the time of the introduction of this benefit. Those figures speak volumes about the way in which the supporting parent's benefit took the worry out of not only being close but also being cautious while close.

There is no disputing that in more recent times Australians have been more sexually active outside marriage than previously. When we consider that the benefit has provided an alternative to abortion for many yet the number of abortions carried out continues to rise, it suggests that people are carefree in their approach or that contraceptives are not in fact the preventative they are supposed to be. While what people do with their lives, as long as it is within the law, is very much their own business, it does become the community's business and the business of government when the cost of these activities reaches hundreds of millions of dollars. Never-married mothers received more than $400m of the $1.5 billion paid out under this benefit. The message from this legislation is simple: people are free to do as they wish but if the result of that freedom is a child it will become much more the financial responsibility of those people than it has been for a long time. The financial resources of Australia can no longer carry such people.

Another area of the supporting parent's benefit that has taken off like a bushfire is that relative to those who have simply been living together, have had children and are no longer together. In 1974 there were 3,100 women in this group. In 13 short years that number has grown to 17,700. In fact, there has been a downturn in that particular area-that is about the only area in which there has been an actual downturn but that is still a six-fold increase. Once more, this legislation shows that while the Government is not moralising on living together, it is saying that if children are born as a result of that relationship people will, in future, have to bear the financial responsibility of that relationship and not leave it to the taxpayer.

I now move to the arena where the 1974 advent of the supporting parent's benefit, in conjunction with the 1975 changes to the Family Law Act, has had such a devastating effect upon attitudes. I refer specifically to the breakdown of marriage. I guess that until 1975 there were hundreds of thousands of families across Australia who had never seen a divorce within their ranks. Today that situation is vastly different. Until 1975 it was not easy to divorce and it took longer. Pre-1975 many couples worked out those problems because it was easier than heading for the divorce courts. Today, sadly, divorce is rampant and it reaches across all socio-economic strata within the Australian community. Today there are tens of thousands of men and women totally bewildered as to the reasons behind their divorce. There are hundreds of thousands of children who are living either in a single parent situation or as part of a new family structure. All that the vast majority of those children really want is for their real parents to still be living together. I make a plea in this place to all colleagues-members of the Australian Labor Party, the National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party of Australia-to recognise that we have an obligation to society to amend the Family Law Act to make the `quickie' divorce just that much more difficult when children are involved. If a marriage is childless, one year's separation is ample. If there are children the law, as it stands, is reckless.

Tonight we are legislating in a bid to put a cap on the financial aspects of a runaway situation. If we look at the results of broken marriages in 1974, we see that the taxpayer carried 9,400 separated wives. The 1987 figure for this category is 106,000. I will read the year to year figures from 1974 up to the present. In 1975 the figure grew from 9,000 to 14,000. In 1976, after the introduction of family law, it went to 20,000; in 1977 it was 23,000; in 1978, 24,000; in 1979, 25,000; in 1980, 28,000; in 1981, 53,000; in 1982, 64,000; in 1983, 73,000; in 1984, 83,000; in 1985, 94,000 and in 1986, 102,000. Last year we kept up our great performance as a nation and 106,000 women were left to battle it out on their own. We have a situation where it is so easy for a marriage to be eclipsed. If it was the male speaking he could say, `Bye bye darling, I'm off. The Government can look after you'. That really meant that the people could look after her. If something grabbed her fancy she might say, `Bye bye, sucker; I'm off. I don't need your support. I'll apply for a benefit and you're not going to see the kids'.

I believe that this combination of the introduction of the supporting parent's benefit and the changes to the Family Law Act has done more to break down the structure of this nation than anything else other than perhaps the scourge of continuing high unemployment. There was a touch of irony in the fact that in 1986 the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Hayden), in an interview on his 25 years in Parliament, claimed the introduction of supporting parent's benefit as one of the great achievements of his parliamentary career. I was in this place when that legislation was introduced. I must say that the only person who sounded a warning bell about the possibility that this could happen was the then honourable member for Mackellar, Billy Wentworth. His protests were fairly muted because nobody was quite sure what the effect would be, but we have seen the effect on those 106,000 people. The breakdown of marriage is costing the Australian taxpayer over $1 billion.

I have said before that the effects of divorce have probably now reached into the majority of Australian families. It is not just the immediate families that are affected. The grandparents and relations are also affected, as are the kids who grow up hardly knowing who their cousins are. Those who have been through it-thankfully, I have not been-well know the experience and can relate it better than I can as a bystander.

I have said before that I make a plea to the Government to go to the core of the problem, which is easy divorce. The Family Law Act needs to be changed. It is too easy for all of us to push the problem under the carpet, forget it and go on to other arenas and other areas of legislation. What the Government is saying is what the people are saying: Australia can no longer afford to pay over $1 billion for the products of broken marriages and can no longer afford in excess of $1 1/2 billion to pick up the cost of the activities of those who have never married, those who have lived in a de facto relationship and those whose marriages have gone on the rocks.

One of the great tragedies, to which I have already alluded, was the emergence of an attitude in this country of letting government pick up the bill. Speaking from a male point of view, I agree with what the Government is doing. Men have to be brought to heel and made to recognise that, if they father children, they have to pay for them. They cannot bring children into the world after one night's activity, move on to the golf course next day and forget about the previous night. If one is not careful, a child is born; that is the risk of the game. What the Government is rightfully saying is, `If you are not careful with your packet, we will get into your pocket'. I do not argue with that theory being applied. But when we talk about the 30-odd per cent of fathers who have met their responsibilities for maintenance and we cite the 60 to 70 per cent who have not, we must recognise that many within that group who have not, men particularly, have been denied access to the children and have adopted the view that, if they are not going to see their child or children, they are not going to put up the money. I fully recognise that in the male species there are some brutal men who have not only brutalised their former spouses but also given their children an experience that those children would rather forget. But I guess there is a great number of women who for reasons best known to themselves have adopted the view of `To hell with him; I am off to the other side of Australia. He will not find me. He is not going to see the children, and that is that. I will live off the Government'.

When the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) brought in amendments to the Family Law Act in the latter part of last year, I asked that he take this very important area into consideration. Whilst I recognise that in some instances the courts may rightly rule that one of the parents be denied access for the sake of the children, where access is granted the Government should be prepared to enforce that access through the courts. If the courts need restructuring to assist in the enforcement of this right, that should be done. If a person has been granted access, bitchiness and an unco-operative approach should not be allowed to flourish because the problem is too hard to solve. I believe that the percentage, particularly of males, who support their children would have increased if in years gone by the Parliament-and I blame both the Opposition and the Government because we are both at fault-had been prepared to recognise that there are grave problems in the area of access and that a lot of the maintenance costs are a result of our ignoring those problems.

As I have said, the Opposition is not endeavouring to deny the passage of this legislation. Ostensibly, we support it. Perhaps we are all entitled to wonder why it took so long to be introduced. I am not just reflecting on the government of the day because I remember ringing the bell in my party room in the late 1970s about the growth that was going on in this area. We were then the government of the day and I am not saying that we shrugged our shoulders, but we seemed to be inadequate in coming to grips with the problem, which has now become more rampant. I hold the view that, if the Family Law Act had been amended, the number of broken families and marriages that we now see would not be as great. As I said earlier, I am not particularly concerned about the breakdown of childless marriages and, sad though it may be to see older couples go their own way when their children have grown up, at least the children are no longer affected because they are making their own lives. Such marriage break-ups do not have quite the same impact.

I know that the Government is saying that its reason for introducing this legislation is a bid to eliminate poverty. That could well be a justification if it leads to that and increases the income of some of those people trying to raise children. I have here a chart showing the cost of raising children. I have four children and I was quite amazed to look at this chart. The ages of my children are almost exactly the same as those in the chart. The chart mentions four children aged two, five, eight and 11; mine are aged two, five, seven and 12. the chart shows the costs for four children of those ages for someone in the middle income bracket as about $8,000 to $9,000 a year. It is absolutely beyond me how some women can raise their children on the supporting parent's benefit. Of course, some of them are assisted in other ways, such as cheap housing provided by government, but one can then argue that, if we have 100,000 single mums vying for housing commission accommodation, they are really displacing many of the families who in bygone eras received those homes just because they were low income earners. Today we have a new poverty group existing in the community and something has to be done to put the brakes on and put an end to the problem.

Debate continues.....part 7