House of Reps proceedings 16 February 1988 part 8

House of Reps proceedings 16 February 1988 part 8

Title: CHILD SUPPORT BILL 1987: Second Reading
Date: 16 February 1988
Speaker: Blunt Mr C.W. (RICHMOND, NP)
Interjector: Mr Connolly
Source: House

Mr BLUNT (Richmond)(9.28) --The last contribution to which the House was treated this evening was lamentable, and it was lamentable because it was political. What we are talking about tonight should be non-party political. As my colleague the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron), who has now left the chamber said, the initial vote on the Family Law Bill was non-party; it was a free vote. I firmly believe and I am sure that most of my colleagues on this side of the House believe-I think if honourable members on the other side of the House were allowed to express an opinion on this they would also believe it-that questions of family law should be given a conscience vote and that it is not uplifting for this Parliament to indulge in the politicisation of the trauma that affects Australian families. Unfortunately, whenever a divorce takes place there is a lot of sadness, pain and suffering, and it is not appropriate for members of parliament from any party to try to score political points on it. We have a responsibility to ensure that the legal framework that operates in our society for marriage and for the dissolution of marriage operates in the most efficient manner and minimises the suffering and trauma visited upon the partners to that marriage and their children. I for one lament every time I hear a politician try to score cheap party political points from someone else's suffering.

The honourable member for Hawker (Mrs Harvey) tonight commented that some honourable members on this side of the House have not spoken to the amendment. If the honourable member for Hawker is truly interested in the amendment I invite her to stay in the chamber for a while and I will talk to her and other honourable members about what that amendment seeks to address. It is a very important question of philosophy. The Australian Labor Party, regrettably, because it has chosen to politicise this matter, has also extended its party philosophy into this question. It has introduced into this House the Child Support Bill, which in many areas is worthy of support, but it is not worthy of support in so far as it seeks to interfere in the lives of people who have resolved their differences amicably, equitably and with dignity and who have come to a financial arrangement that is fair to both parties.

The Bill before the House tonight purports to involve everybody, irrespective of the arrangements people may have entered into with their partners, irrespective of the degree of satisfaction the former partners may have had. They may have sat down amicably at a table and agreed to the financial arrangements that will pertain after the dissolution of that marriage. They may be equitable, they may be fair, they may be quite generous, but under the provisions of this Bill Big Brother gets involved. There is no choice. The obligation to pay the maintenance is an obligation to the child support agency and the agency will remit to the other partner and that will be entered in the register.

As I have said, I do not believe that we should politicise this debate. I also do not believe that government has any business sticking its nose, and bureaucrats certainly have no business poking their sticky fingers, into people's affairs where there is no need. After the dissolution of a marriage, if there is no claim on the social security system, if there is no dispute between the former partners, if the children are being looked after well, if the maintenance payments are being made, why do we want a bureaucrat involved? That is the question that I am expecting the Government to answer. The answer is that the Labor Party wants to involve the bureaucracy in everything. Other members have spoken in this debate tonight about the default figures. I have seen the default figures showing that 70 per cent of maintenance orders are not complied with. There is some question as to the accuracy of those figures, and I invite any honourable member on the other side of the House who is genuinely interested in this issue to read some of the information that is available and not just take the hand-outs from people who have a vested interest in this matter. The default rate is very high, I am not denying that, but there is some question about the often touted figure of 70 per cent.

The thing that must be acknowledged when we consider this is that if we change the circumstances, if we create an agency and facilitate a mechanism for the collection of maintenance, perhaps people will have a different attitude to its payment. Maybe historical figures are not necessarily appropriate for judging what will happen in the future. Of course, the Bill does not address the question of civil liberties, but what could I expect from a party that knuckled under to Caucus pressure and voted for an identification card. I do not think there are terribly many people on the other side of the chamber these days who have minds of their own. They are part of a machine, a machine which increasingly is run by party bureaucrats and political operatives-we inducted another one into the Senate tonight-a machine which is determining that the decisions of the machine will be paramount and damn the views of Caucus. I say, `More power to Caucus'. It is about time Caucus started to flex its muscles. The doomed Premier of New South Wales said one thing that is very true. The Labor Party ought not only listen to the voice of the people but it also ought to pay attention to the people and implement their views.

The question we are considering tonight is fundamentally very important. The Labor Party is saying that it is another piece of its social legislation. The reality is that, if it is so important to the Labor Party, why did it wait five years? In 1983 there was a proposal to establish a maintenance collection agency.

Mr Connolly --In 1980.

Mr BLUNT --I am told by the honourable member for Bradfield that it was 1980. That was eight years ago. There was a proposal-it was not a perfect proposal-in 1983 which it could have acted upon. It could have acted on that in 1984, 1985, 1986 or 1987. But it is 1988, almost into the sixth year of the Hawke Labor Government and we have this piece of legislation that the Labor Party professes to hold dear. It comes in here masquerading on the basis that its entire motive for introducing the legislation is its concern about the poverty of Australian children. I suggest that honourable members on the Government side examine the Bill and the second reading speech of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) and the rationale behind the Bill. They will see that what it is really designed to do is minimise social security costs. If the Government were genuinely concerned about this whole area it would bring to this House a package that was not just concerned with the payments of maintenance but which would address the problems of the Family Law Act. If ever there was a piece of law that had problems and was desperately in need of reform the Family Law Act is it.

Reference was made by the honourable member for Hawker earlier tonight to changes that were made to the Family Law Act to ensure that parents accepted responsibility for their children. Hallelujah! In 1983 Senator Durack, in another place, sought to amend the Family Law Act along those lines, and several times since 1983 we have sought to introduce a private senator's Bill in the Senate to make those appropriate changes to the Family Law Act-changes that are important in terms of equity, that will reduce demand on the social security system and that will require consideration of parents' means before resort is made to the social security system. This Government, which now attaches so much importance to the changes, would not accept them. It knocked them out. The changes never came before the House of Representatives. The changes could have been made years ago with bipartisan support, but they were not, because the Labor Party, contrary to its rhetoric, decided that this was a political issue and it would not wear the changes. The Government may not have liked our words precisely, but we are not difficult to deal with. All we were aiming to do was to change a problem that existed in the Family Law Act, to introduce a bit of equity relative to the Australian taxpayer and parents. We would have accepted changed words as long as the impact of the changes was what we wanted-what the Government has introduced recently in the last sittings of Parliament. But, no, that was not done. That is an indication of the Labor Party's priority and its determination to use the whole issue for scoring political points.

The way in which the Labor Party has handled this issue has been nothing short of disgraceful. In 1986 there was the rhetoric associated with the Budget Speech about how certain things would be done to improve the lot of supporting parents and to ensure that maintenance was collected. In my office we started to get calls from custodial parents who said, `Oh, good, something is going to be done. We will not have to pursue this issue through the courts'. They stopped the legal action that they had initiated on the basis of the Minister's statements in this chamber. Unfortunately, the Minister was not fair dinkum, or perhaps he had a totally unrealistic expectation of how long it would take to bring the legislation before the chamber. The legislation was first talked about in 1986 and 1987 came and went. If my memory serves me correctly, the legislation was supposed to start on 1 July 1987. Here we are in February 1988 and the Bill is before the House. It was talked about in 1986, expectations were raised, there was rhetoric after rhetoric, statement after statement and politicisation of the whole issue and, in 1988, we finally see a Bill-a Bill which is really preoccupied with the social security aspects of this question and not the total picture as it is affected by the Family Law Act.

We have moved an amendment. It is an important amendment because it deals with the rights of the individual. There is one thing that we cannot accept and I do not believe that there is any difference between any significant numbers of honourable members, no matter on which side of the chamber they sit, about the obligations of parents, be they married or non-married, in terms of their children. The reality is that the primary obligation of a parent in terms of his or her children is to provide support to his or her capacity. There is no way, on moral or economic grounds, that a parent can justify walking away from that responsibility and placing it on the Australian taxpayer through the social security system. As I have said, it is lamentable that the Labor Party did not choose to amend the Family Law Act some five years ago to stop that. We would have had five fewer years of cases had the Government done so. How many cases does the Government think went through in those five years when it sat around on its hands playing politics?

As I have said before, it is important, when parents do the right thing by themselves, their children and the taxpayer, that they preserve the dignity about which the honourable member for Hawker spoke and that they not have a bureaucrat sticking his nose into their private affairs; that they not be required to have their employer know all about their private affairs; and that they not have their name listed on some register; they have a right to come to a private arrangement. That is what our amendment is designed to do.

We recognise that there is a need to ensure that people make maintenance payments. If the payments are not made, if one former partner does not agree to a private arrangement or if there is a claim on the social security system, all bets are off and the agency should be involved. But if there are none of those things-if the partners agree, if the maintenance is being paid and if there is no claim on the social security system-what is the business of the Government's bureaucracy getting involved in their private affairs? That is the trouble with this country and the Australian Labor Party today. The Labor Party is too ready to stick its nose into the private business of Australian people. Let me tell the Labor Party that the Australian people are very concerned about this. If the Government goes along this track as it has intimated in terms of child support and if stage 2 of this package comes in and follows the same philosophies, it will have a massive backlash. The Government thinks that it had backlash over timed telephone charges. Wait until it sees the backlash it gets over sticking its nose into the private marital affairs of Australians. Literally hundreds of thousands of families are affected by this and literally millions of people are prepared to vote on it. The Government should think about that the next time Caucus considers a bit of legislation. There is no issue that raises greater passion than the question of the dissolution of marriage and the obligation of partners to pay maintenance.

It is not just a question of partners to a first marriage; it is a question of second families, their rights and equities and the attitudes of the second partner. I will give the Government one bit of advice which I hope it takes. I do so most sincerely. The Government should get politics out of the question of family law. Every time we have a question in this Parliament which relates to family law and the support of children, we should have a free conscience vote. It is only then that we will start to get down to an honest, non-political treatment of what is essentially a very personal, sensitive and important subject.

We have a problem in this country with the rate of marriage breakdown and the rate of partnership breakdown. I am not about to stand here tonight in judgment of anybody's domestic or private arrangements, but I will say-I say this categorically and again, because I believe it most fervently-political parties have no business in those arrangements. If the Caucus had any guts it would insist on a free vote on these issues, because then we would start to get people in here talking reasonably and rationally and not scoring political points on this issue. To come in here and talk about family assistance packages and equal opportunity legislation in this context is a sheer nonsense and demonstrates a degree of insincerity that I find amazing, astounding and, as I have said, lamentable.

This issue is very important. I hope that the Government recognises the validity of our amendment. It is moved conscientiously and with a desire to protect the rights of individuals who come to a satisfactory arrangement-satisfactory to all the parties involved, including the taxpayer. I would hope that, if not in this place, in the Senate we would have support for it because it is important in terms of where we go next regarding changes to the Family Law Act.

Many other issues should be addressed. I note the injunction of the former Deputy Speaker to stay on the subject, but there are many issues that need to be canvassed, including amendments to the Family Law Act, resources available to the Family Court of Australia and related issues. It is a great pity that we do not have the opportunity to discuss those issues on a non-partisan basis. I support the amendment. As I have said, I hope that the Caucus has some guts and genuine concern for the whole issue of child support, will

Debate continues.....part 9