House of Reps proceedings 17 February 1988 Part 2

House of Reps proceedings 17 February 1988 Part 2

Title: CHILD SUPPORT BILL 1987: Second Reading
Date: 17 February 1988
Speaker: Courtice Mr B.W. (HINKLER, ALP, Government)
Source: House

Mr COURTICE (Hinkler)(10.29) --The Child Support Bill 1987 is an important step in the process towards contributing to an improved quality of life for many children in our nation. Over half of the 800,000 Australian children living in poverty are in sole parent families. Some 70 per cent of non-custodial parents do not pay regular maintenance to their children. Inevitably, the taxpayers, through the social security system, are left to pick up the cost. Federal expenditure on sole parent income support has increased from $160m in 1973-74 to $1,757m in 1985-86, which is an increase in real terms of 245 per cent. Yet, it is essential to stress that in spite of this massive increase, many sole parents are still left in poverty. Ironically, in the majority of instances, these non-custodial parents are employed and are able to make a significant contribution to their children's support.

The basic problem is one of ensuring that payments are made to help support children. The only way this can be achieved is through a collection system which does not depend on voluntary payment. The deduction of maintenance will be made automatically from wages or salaries. Clause 30 of the Bill creates a liability on the payer to pay child support to the Child Support Registrar. The Child Support Registrar will be the Commissioner of Taxation and this officer will be responsible for the administration of the legislation and the keeping of the Child Support Register. The Registrar will administer the Act through the child support agency, a non-statutory group within the Australian Taxation Office, and will have offices in each State.

Orders for payment under the scheme will be made by the courts which will continue to assess and issue orders setting child and spouse maintenance levels. The amounts can be reassessed if circumstances change. This can be achieved by negotiating another agreement with the other parent or by seeking a variation in the order from the court. I notice that some amendments will be made to the Family Law Act to give priority to child maintenance by the courts, by placing child maintenance obligations above everything else except the basic self-support commitments of the parents and their dependants. Importantly, this changes the ludicrous situation where courts took into account social security benefits when determining maintenance benefits.

The Department of Social Security estimates that significant savings will be made for taxpayers by requesting non-custodial parents to accept a fair share of financial responsibility for their children. Estimates for the 1987-88 Budget put the savings to taxpayers at $7.6m, increasing to $192.8m in 1989-90. I believe that the Bill will give sole parents, 90 per cent of whom are women, a new dignity. Many of these women have little prospect of entering the work force in the immediate future. I note that the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) is chairing a committee to investigate ways to facilitate the entry of women on pensions into the work force. I wish the honourable member and her committee every success in this project because it will have important social implications for women in these situations. At this stage I would also like to pay tribute to the contributions made by the honourable member for Forde (Mrs Crawford) and the honourable member for Hawker (Mrs Harvey) with regard to this Bill.

I had a constituent come to see me. She was a deserted wife who was urging the Government to allow pensioners to earn more before they lost part of their pension. She was attempting to pay off a home with assistance under the first home owner scheme. She had three young children-two of whom were school age. Her desertion by her husband made her situation extremely marginal. At present, she is caught in a poverty trap. I hope that this Bill will increase her means of support. In most cases, the new scheme is compulsory for new applicants for sole parent pensions. These persons will have to take reasonable action, within specified guidelines, to obtain child maintenance in order to maintain their eligibility for their pension.

The other group-and my constituent may be in this category-are sole parent pensioners who have a maintenance order or agreement which is less than three years old. In Queensland, the marginalising of single parents is especially acute for those women forced to live in Housing Commission Homes. The Queensland Housing Commission ties its rent to income. This means that in the past when sole parents have attempted to rid themselves of the shackles of a pension, the Housing Commission policy has dragged them back into their homes because they find they are working for nothing.

In my own electorate of Hinkler, there is a severe rental housing shortage in Bundaberg. Many sole parents are forced to take up accommodation in caravan parks or in expensive rental accommodation. Women in such situations have only a work alternative to sustain them. In Bundaberg, most of the casual work is undertaken in the fruit and vegetable picking industry. The problem has been that women, at short notice, must find a carer for their children. In other instances, the financial pressure on sole parents places many children in the `at risk' category. I am pleased to say that in Bundaberg there are some excellent child care facilities that have helped in many ways to sustain women in this situation. The Baptist Church in Bundaberg runs an excellent family day care centre. The ladies in charge, Lorraine Frampton, Brenda Horan and Noelene Young, do a superb job on behalf of working families and single parents in Bundaberg. Children can be placed in the care of a day care mother at any hour of the day or night. The Minister recognised the important role being played in this centre by increasing the number of places to 125 full time places. This service has had the effect of increasing the alternatives for women in marginal situations.

I also pay tribute to Kathy Hopper and the women of the Bundaberg Country Women's Association day care centre. Kathy and her staff care for 60 children at any one time, ranging from the very young to almost school age. Kathy is committed to child care and recently chaired a well attended meeting on child care regulations in Bundaberg. These women recognise the needs of women in the separated, divorced or deserted category. I stress that children are the greatest resource this nation has. I can only hope that the child maintenance payments made by either husbands or wives to the child support agency will improve the prospects for families abandoned by one or other parent.

In an ideal world, people will meet their commitments. After all, this is what marriage is-a commitment. When people make a decision to have children, they are agreeing to take care, to the best of their ability, of the welfare of those children. When a marriage shatters-and unfortunately marriages do-it is the children who suffer. I only wish that people could receive proper counselling before deciding to end a marriage. In this way they would be totally comfortable with their decision. In my opinion, it is the guilt complex and acrimony resulting from a broken marriage which force or allow people to be remiss in their responsibilities to their family. Unfortunately, children from such break-ups who end in poverty have a poor role model to follow. It is to be hoped that improved maintenance provisions will give people and their children a decent standard of living with which to continue their lives.

This Bill is of profound importance to the 800,000 children living in poverty. I congratulate the Minister and those members on both sides of the House who have had anything to do with its formulation. It is aimed at the elimination of child poverty and deserves the support of the community at large. As an instrument of social justice, it lays at the heart of what I believe in. Together with the family package introduced by this Government, this Bill will lift the living standards of some of the most needy in our community.

Title: CHILD SUPPORT BILL 1987: Second Reading
Date: 17 February 1988
Speaker: Shipton Mr R.F. (HIGGINS, LP)
Source: House

Mr SHIPTON (Higgins)(10.37) --I am pleased, as an Opposition member, to take part in this debate on the Child Support Bill. It shows that in this Parliament there can be a degree of bipartisanship from Government and Opposition on important matters affecting the community, especially families and children. Opposition speakers including the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), have pointed to the broad support given to this Bill. The Opposition has moved a constructive amendment which supports the general thrust of the legislation.

It is interesting to reflect upon why this legislation is needed. It shows that there is a great breakdown in marriage in the community, in family responsibilities and particularly in parental responsibilities. It is necessary for us to examine some of the reasons and to seek answers as to why this is happening. This goes to the nature of the society in which we live and the sort of society in which children are being brought up, and the kinds of attitudes they will develop when they have families of their own. Certainly there has been an incredible breakdown in marriage and family responsibilities. Indeed, there has been an abdication of responsibility by parents who do not have custody of children-non-custodial parents is the term used. It shows a breakdown not only of responsibility but of parental discipline, as well as of discipline in the broader sense and a total breakdown in values. This is a poor reflection of the state of society.

One has to examine why this has happened. The responsibility for family and parental matters has shifted to the Government, to the community, to the taxpayer. It costs the taxpayer $1 billion or more to provide support for children of parents who do not have custody and who have abdicated their financial responsibility. This measure is an intervention by government to try in an administrative and bureaucratic way to remedy a societal wrong. One does not welcome administrative and bureaucratic interference with families which results in setting up more bureaucracies. In many respects that interference probably adds to the problem. In the short term the Opposition sees that it is the only way to force parents who do not have custody of their children to be financially responsible for them. It is a regrettable step but governments have to act. In supporting this legislation I hope that it will be the start of a move in society to get parents to take more responsibility for their families. Parents have to be responsible for the children they bring into the world.

Allied with the breakdown of responsibility and the breakdown of discipline we have a growth in the poverty of Australian families and of children. It is appalling that there are some 800,000 Australian children living in poverty. It is appalling that the Minister has to admit it-I am not saying that the Minister is responsible-and that we, on both sides of the House, have to debate legislation such as this. It is appalling that we have to admit that in our society today, because of a breakdown in the values about which I have talked, there are 800,000 children living in poverty, about 400,000 of whom are in the care of sole parents. These are the children on which this Bill is focusing in an attempt to remedy the situation. As has been pointed out, only 30 per cent of maintenance agreements made in the Family Court following the breakdown of marriages are met, which forces many sole parents to rely entirely on social welfare. This adds to the social security bill. It adds to the burden on the taxpayer and, with the abdication of responsibility, it puts many sole parents who are mainly mothers, and their children on the welfare treadmill. This is not something which either those families or society want.

One problem allied with marriage breakdown relates to family values and responsibilities. Together with the financial burden on society caused by the shift of financial responsibilities from individuals to the community and the taxpayer, there has been an increase in the incidence of child abuse. In my own State of Victoria the incidence of child abuse is appalling. It seems to be on the increase. The voluntary agencies in the field in Victoria cannot cope with the problem. There seems to have been a complete breakdown in the Victorian Department of Community Services. The agencies in the field cannot cope with the number of cases of child abuse.

When a matter of child abuse is brought before a court-mainly a magistrates court-and a care and protection order is sought, the court cannot give orders because there are no backup services to support either the family or the child involved. In my State there has been a total breakdown because resources are not available to support a child, where there is suspected abuse, and there is no investigative facility to determine the position. There are just no resources available. The police support group is overloaded and there are not enough social welfare workers. People in voluntary agencies are trying to carry the burden to the best of their ability, but there is no governmental support of any sort for the child and family involved in such terrible abuse.

I hope that something will be done by the Victorian Government. All these matters are interlinked-family breakdown, breakdown in values, increased poverty and breakdown of discipline. As I have said, regrettably the legislation reflects the sad state of affairs in society today and it takes place in an environment in which the poor are getting poorer, the rich are getting richer, and more and more Australian families are in poverty and there has been an increase in the social welfare burden because of the shift of responsibility from individuals to the taxpayer at large.

I hope that the legislation will work. I hope that the enforcement of maintenance orders will come about because of it. I hope that, in carrying out the intent of the legislation, there will be a minimum of bureaucratic administration and interference with families. At the end of the day, those who bring children into the world have a responsibility to care for those families to the best of their ability. Tragically, that is not happening in society today. As a member of the Opposition, I support the thrust of the legislation. In doing so, I support the position of the Opposition shadow Minister and his amendment which says that non-custodial parents who have not claimed upon the state, are abiding by their maintenance agreement and are exercising responsibility should not be subject to the legislation. Of course, once they fail to abide by their maintenance agreement, once they fail to honour their responsibilities, the Opposition says that they should be subject to the provisions of the Child Support Bill generally. Debate continued.......part 3