House of Reps proceedings 17 February 1988 Part 4

House of Reps proceedings 17 February 1988 Part 4

Title: CHILD SUPPORT BILL 1987: Second Reading
Date: 17 February 1988
Speaker: Howe The Hon B.L. (BATMAN, SOCIAL SECURITY, ALP, Government)
Source: House

Mr HOWE (Batman-Minister for Social Security)(11.00) --The debate on the Child Support Bill from honourable members on both sides of the House has been extremely constructive. I congratulate and thank all members of the Government and the Opposition for the very thoughtful way in which they have approached this debate, for the constructive way the debate was pursued and for the recognition of both the sensitivity and the great importance of the proposed child support scheme.

I shall make one or two introductory comments and then work my way through some of the principal issues raised in the debate. Apart from specific points made by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), the only caveat which I had and about which I felt somewhat annoyed was the suggestion that the Government was interested only in savings. Nothing could be further from the truth. As was suggested by a number of honourable members on both sides of the House, the scheme will be extremely relevant to and supportive of the overall Government objective of reducing and eliminating child poverty by 1990.

It is certainly true that the benefits, if you like, of the child support scheme are shared between the custodial parent and revenue. The Government has made very substantial commitments to assisting sole parents. The Government wishes to create the circumstances whereby a significant proportion of sole parents who are currently in poverty are lifted out of poverty, not only through income support by way of social security assistance to sole parents but also through a range of policies. It would be understood by the honourable member for Bradfield and people participating in the debate that one of the principal problems that sole parents face is exclusion from the work force. We intend to go further along that track in particular.

One other incidental point made by the honourable member for Bradfield was that the Government ought to address the problems of sole parents where there are no non-custodial parents. Of course, as the honourable member for Bradfield would be aware, we have increased the mother's guardian's allowance from $6 to $12, but there are in the social security review paper by Professor Bettina Cass further recommendations that the Government has not yet addressed. The government has implemented some of the recommendations of that review, but this year, as part of the family package, the Government intends to study in detail the sole parent review paper and the unemployment benefit paper that was released several weeks ago. In the next few weeks the Government is also expecting to receive a paper on disability from Professor Cass. Particularly within the context of the transition to work theme that runs through each of those three papers, we will again examine the situation of sole parents and the recommendations that Professor Cass made.

We would not want the House or any honourable members to think that that situation of sole parents, where there are no non-custodial parents, would not be considered. If it is being suggested that sole parenthood itself deserves some additional assistance where children are involved, certainly that is a view that the Government has, and it will consider what further measures can be taken.

The Opposition amendment refers to people who are supporting their children without resort to pensions or benefits. It expresses concern that agreements in these cases not be required to be registered with the child support agency. Some Opposition members, particularly the honour- able members for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) and Gippsland (Mr McGauran), have referred to a different issue-the question of when automatic withholding from salary or wages will apply. There is clearly some confusion in the Opposition about these issues. That is understandable. The issues are quite complex, and I shall explain the Government's policy in detail.

Firstly, a major defect in child support is the lack of any national register of child support orders or agreements. Currently child support orders and agreements are filed in every Magistrates Court, every Family Court register and most Supreme Court registries around the country. This creates tremendous practical problems. For example, if a couple separate in Broome, they will often get a maintenance order from the Broome Magistrates Court. If the custodial parent moves to Melbourne or Sydney and wants to enforce or update that order he or she will have to contact the Clerk of the Court in Broome to try to get a copy of the order. Often enforcement proceedings in such cases will have to be taken to Broome. Therefore, the first thing we would want to do is to move to a comprehensive national register so that separated parents can enforce and comply with their obligations wherever they live in Australia.

Secondly, whenever a custodial parent is not on a pension or benefit there is absolutely no compulsion to participate in the scheme in any way. All orders of the court made after the commencement of the Child Support Act will be entered on the Register so that we achieve the national register I mentioned earlier. Whenever a custodial parent is not on a pension he or she can simply choose not to participate in the scheme by notifying the Registrar to do nothing; then nothing will happen. The order is simply on the national Register for either party to enforce or seek varied if they wish. This is the central issue that the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) did not understand. An order being on the Register is not the same as the order being enforced by the agency. There is no bureaucratic involvement just because the order is on the Register.

The honourable member for Bradfield seemed to suggest that the non-custodial parent should be able to choose not to have the scheme apply even though the custodial parent wants the child support agency to collect the maintenance. The Government is committed to ensuring that the custodial parents receive maintenance on a timely and regular basis. That is one of the objects of the Bill set out in clause 3.

If a custodial parent makes the judgment that she or he needs the assistance of the child support agency to get that maintenance on a timely and regular basis, we do not think we should say, `You cannot use this agency to get your maintenance until you can show that it has not come through'. Under this scheme maintenance will be income for custodians and their children to live on. The Government does not accept that custodial families should go without that income for a few months before they have some security that their maintenance will come through.

The honourable members for Gippsland and O'Connor argued that non-custodial parents should be required to have maintenance automatically deducted from their salaries only if they default on paying maintenance orders. This would continue the present uncertainty of income that custodial parents face. This scheme aims to ensure, so far as possible, that those parents can count on a regular level of income to provide for their children. If default was the trigger for automatic withholding, children would have to go without. The present system proves that this would happen in many cases. There is no need to put those families through that insecurity when we have a system to help. There is no stigma attached to automatic withholding and we do not want to create one. Automatic withholding is an efficient collection of money at its source. If default was necessary to apply automatic withholding great stigma would be caused by it in every case.

The honourable members for Bradfield and O'Connor raised the question of the burden on employers. The Government is conscious that we cannot impose undue burdens on employers, while recognising that their participation in the scheme is critical. We have consulted with them widely and we have restricted their involvement to the minimum necessary to operate the scheme. For example, employers will have to make deductions only when advised to do so by the child support agency. They need not seek information from their employees about their maintenance obligations. They will deduct the same amount each payday, just like credit union deductions. They will be required to do a lot less than is required under the present system of garnishee orders which can result in their making a variety of payments to a number of courts throughout Australia.

The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) expressed concern that the Government proposes to exclude some people from using the agency. The Government has put an initial restriction on the number of people eligible to use the scheme, because if there were unrestricted access to the child support agency, staffing and resource implications could make the scheme unmanageable. The number of people who presently have child maintenance orders is difficult to establish with certainty but it is estimated that an additional 200,000 people could seek maintenance collection if there was unrestricted access. For this reason we propose to gradually assume responsibility for collection orders lodged with State collection agencies. We have defined the population to be covered by the regulations so that if there is spare capacity in the system to broaden the coverage there will be flexibility to do so.

The honourable members for Forde (Ms Crawford), Hawker (Mrs Harvey), Fisher (Mr Lavarch), Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) and Sturt made very thoughtful contributions on the sole-parent policy generally. The Social Security Review has examined many of the issues raised by these members. The Government will consider them this year. The general thrust of its approach is to improve the adequacy of income support for those sole-parent families in poverty, and this Bill is a central part of this strategy; and to break down barriers to sole parents working. The honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Courtice) so clearly spelt out that this involves labour market programs and child care. It also involves substantial changes to the way pensions are income tested. The separate income test on maintenance to be introduced in the social security amendments for the child support scheme are a crucial part of this. We also wish to put an end to the practices that have encouraged sole parents in the prime of their working lives to feel that they must stay on a pension for an extended period.

The honourable member for Sturt referred to problems that could occur by sole parents colluding with their spouses to maximise pension and to obtain a combined living standard higher than if the marriage had stayed intact. The sole-parent issues paper of the Social Security Review and the work of the Institute of Family Studies and the economic consequences of family breakdown show that this is certainly not a common problem. There are features of the child support scheme which stop collusion between the spouses. We will income test all maintenance regardless of its form, including in kind maintenance and capital maintenance, and collection by the agency will make it impossible to hide maintenance and avoid income tests.

The honourable member for Gippsland asserted that this Government has cut funding to marriage counselling organisations. This is simply untrue. In the past year we have increased funding for marriage counselling by $920,000. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) is very strongly committed to maintaining this service to families to help families to form and maintain strong and healthy marriages.

In this scheme we are integrating the social security and family law systems and balancing the interests of all involved. Most importantly, we are providing for the children of separated and divorced parents a better standard of living and greater income security. More custodial parents can expect regular and timely maintenance payments and will no longer be left to pursue maintenance enforcement as best they can on their own. Non-custodial parents' concerns have been taken into account. Wherever separating or divorcing parents can make arrangements in an amicable way, they will continue to be able to do so. There are provisions to protect non-custodial parents' privacy. They will be required to pay only according to their capacity, and deductions will never be made below an appropriate level for their own self-support and that of their dependants.

I again say that the contributions made by every member of parliament participating in this debate have been very constructive. As I said earlier, I was very impressed by the thoughtful way in which all contributions were made. Great concern was expressed about the need for much greater adequacy of support, particularly concerning children, for sole parent families. I think that concern came through very strongly on both sides of the Parliament. Very great concern was expressed that we achieve a more equitable sharing of the burden of responsibility; that there be greater fairness in the area of maintenance. I think there could be nothing less fair, as the honourable member for Moncrieff said, than the current situation in which maintenance is such an arbitrary matter. In enforcing, through the child support agency, the responsibility of non-custodial parents, one is moving away from the existing arbitrary situation to one which is marked by much greater fairness.

I think we in the Parliament are all concerned about incentive, or what I would prefer to call `opportunity'-the need to provide greater incentive or greater opportunity for sole parents not simply to achieve a living standard which is above the poverty line but in a real sense to participate in the mainstream of the community. We know that at the moment there are all the barriers in the world to that occurring. I thank honourable members for their contributions.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Title: CHILD SUPPORT BILL 1987: Third Reading
Date: 17 February 1988

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion (by Mr Howe) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Title: CHILD SUPPORT BILL 1987: Third Reading
Date: 17 February 1988
Speaker: Cameron Mr D.M. (MORETON, LP)
Source: House

Mr DONALD CAMERON (Moreton)(11.18) --I wish to make a short comment about the summary given by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). I missed part of his summary during the trip here from my office, at the far end of the House. The Minister has rightly congratulated all members of the Parliament on a fairly moderate approach to the legislation before the House, but one thing that causes me distress is the continuing failure of government to come to grips with the root cause of the huge growth in the number of supporting parents. In my speech last night in the second reading debate I read figures provided by the Department of Social Security relating to separated wives. They showed a growth from 9,000 in 1974 to 14,000 in 1975; 20,000 in 1976; 23,000 in 1977; 24,000 in 1978; 25,000 in 1979; 28,000 in 1980; 53,000 in 1981; 64,000 in 1982; 73,000 in 1983; 83,000 in 1984; 94,000 in 1985; 102,000 in 1986; and-another jump-106,000 in the year that has just ended, 1987.

According to the Government, the intention of this legislation is one of compassion and a determination to lift these people from the floor of poverty. We all go along with that principle-the Minister has no argument-but the Government is shutting its eyes to the need to reform the family law legislation, which is allowing the rampant breakdown of marriage to continue in this country. The very growth in the figures I have given shows how the marriage breakdown phenomenon has continued unabated. Last night I made the plea to the Minister and to the Government that they look at the family law legislation with a view, particularly where children are involved, to extending the period of separation required for eligibility for divorce from one year to two years.

Rocky marriages are not confined to the latter half of the twentieth century. They have always existed, but in days gone by it was not quite so easy to bail out of marriage as it is today. In the old days, because it was not easy to get out of marriage, the problems of marriage were often settled because people worked them out for themselves. Today we continue a system where by people say, `Bye, bye; I am off'. I believe that government has a responsibility to ensure that divorce, whilst not impossible by any means, is not made so easy. While we have a moral obligation to rid Australia of poverty, we also have an obligation to look at emotional poverty. All the average child wants is parents who are together and to be living as part of a family unit, rather than being the child of a broken marriage. That is the least preferable, unless, as I said in the House last night a child is born into a house where there are bashings and brutality. I ask the Minister genuinely, out of deep concern at the escalation in divorce this nation has witnessed since 1974, since the advent of the supporting parent's benefit, to turn his attention to this. We have an obligation in this area.

Title: CHILD SUPPORT BILL 1987: Third Reading
Date: 17 February 1988
Speaker: Howe The Hon B.L. (BATMAN, SOCIAL SECURITY, ALP, Government)
Interjector: Mr Donald Cameron

Mr HOWE (Batman-Minister for Social Security)(11.23) --in reply-I shall respond very briefly to the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron). I heard what he said last night. I meant to look up the figures in relation to divorce but I did not get around to doing it.

Mr Donald Cameron --My figures are from your Department, so they are right.

Mr HOWE --I am not disagreeing with the honourable member's figures, but I would have thought that there had been a sharp reduction in the rate of increase in divorce in the last two or three years. I am not sure that the honourable member's picture of an exponential rate of increase specifically in relation to divorce is correct.

Mr Donald Cameron --I concede that that is not necessarily the measure.

Mr HOWE --The honourable member concedes it. I understand that. I was quite impressed with the speech of the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) concerning this point. I think one has to be massively impressed with the suffering that women particularly have had inflicted on them as a result of the increase in marriage breakdown that certainly occurred in the late 1970s and the costs that they bear as a result of that. I found the comments of the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) on that matter to be a little incredulous. It seems to me that the facts are clear in terms of the work of the Institute of Family Studies on the relative increase in the living standards of the non-custodial parent and the massive depreciation of the living standards of the custodial parent. I think there is a terrible unfairness in the current situation.

But I take the point that I thought was made clearly by the honourable member for Moncrieff that one needs to be very careful about making judgments or seeking to reverse the changes that occurred in the 1970s. I think that is just a point of disagreement between the honourable member and me and certainly between the Government and the honourable member. We think the changes that occurred in relation to family law basically were very positive changes and were particularly in the interests of women. But that is not to say, as the honourable member for Moncrieff said, that there were not some unintended consequences as a result of those changes and that there were not some inequities and injustices that needed to be addressed. In part, that is what this legislation seeks to do.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.