Senate proceedings 16 October 1986

Senate proceedings 16 October 1986

Title: CHILD SUPPORT: Discussion Paper and Text of Ministerial Statement
Date: 16 October 1986
Speaker: Haines Sen J. (AD, SA)
Source: Senate

Senator HAINES (South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(3.06) —When this paper was put before the Senate on Tuesday I was commenting first of all on the fact that the Government was to be congratulated on taking steps to put out a discussion paper prior to launching itself into what could have been rather precipitate, and perhaps controversial, legislation and that it was giving community groups, described in the foreword as `appropriate community organisations', the opportunity of making submissions on the contents of this discussion paper. Unfortunately, they will have only six or seven weeks in which to make those submissions. However, presumably since this discussion paper has been flagged for some months, large numbers of community groups will be only too anxious to have their say about exactly how we should go in this country about ensuring that children from broken marriages are supported financially to an adequate and appropriate extent.

As the Government has pointed out on page 8 of this paper, currently just over a quarter of a million sole parents and class A widows' pension recipients are caring for some 450,000 children. For the majority of sole parent families the pension or benefit is their only source of income. Government expenditure on social security payments for class A widows and supporting parent beneficiaries has risen substantially over the last decade from $160m in 1973-74 to $1,757m in 1985-86, an increase of some 245 per cent in real terms. The paper goes on to emphasise that part of the problem facing those sole supporting parents is that there are very limited labour market opportunities and that most of the people who are affected are women. Their difficulties are compounded by the fact that we already have more people unemployed than there are jobs but in the main an additional burden facing these women is that they have school age or pre-school age children and therefore require not full time work but permanent part time work and in addition to that child care, the availability of which is, as we know, rather limited in this country at this stage.

The paper points out the problems currently facing custodial parents with regard to the receipt of maintenance. Over half the custodial parents who are entitled to maintenance never receive, or receive only irregularly, the money that is due to them, and this means that they are facing an increasing financial burden, particularly as the children get older. We are also faced with the fact of life that in many ways the Family Law Act encourages a fairly low level of payment per child-usually it averages about $20 a week per child-and this is insufficient on any criterion that is used for an adequate amount of support for a child.

There is also some concern about the way in which maintenance has become an optional payment in many cases. Because it is not deducted at source but is left up to the maintenance payer to forward the payment to the custodial parent, in many cases other debts are given priority and this, of course, rebounds enormously on the welfare of the children concerned. We hope that the Government will listen to the responses for the community. We hope that it will reject any suggestion that maintenance payments should be somehow tied to access of the children, because the two should be regarded as separate, and that it will make the legislation as fair and as flexible as possible. For example, those existing maintenance orders which are currently complied with should not necessarily be picked up under the legislation, although this Government should make every attempt to collect payments, under the auspices of whatever legislation it brings forward, from those people who have evaded paying maintenance to date.

Title: CHILD SUPPORT: Discussion Paper and Text of Ministerial Statement
Date: 16 October 1986
Speaker: Aulich Sen T. (ALP, TAS, Government)
Source: Senate

Senator AULICH (Tasmania)(3.11) - I wish to spend a few moments recommending to the Senate the Government discussion paper on child maintenance entitled `Child Support'. This paper represents a vital discussion document in the light of recent trends in Australian society-trends that are best summarised on page 7 of the Government's discussion paper. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) has to be commended for recognising both the human and fiscal problems relating to the breakdown of marriages or de facto marriages and the situation of the children involved in those breakdowns. Especially relevant is the attempt in this discussion paper to address the significant problems caused by the fact that less than 30 per cent of custodial parents receive regular cash payments from non-custodial parents.

It must be said at the outset that no amount of government legislation will solve the problems associated with matrimonial breakdown, especially in cases where one of the partners is determined, or both of the partners are determined, to be unco-operative or vindictive. What can be done, however, is to provide a framework in which couples can separate cheaply and as co-operatively as possible and in which the children are cared for as appropriately as possible. The Government recognises, however, that any improvements to the system cannot be imposed on the community without widespread discussion and detailed analysis of the likely effects of new legislation and administrative procedures, especially those aimed at protecting the interests of children. It is therefore the wish of the Government to elicit as great a response as is possible prior to any legislative and administrative action.

The Family Law Act has been a marked improvement over previous legislation, but in practise, for many couples, it has fallen short of achieving, firstly, the protection of children's interests; secondly, the fair division of property; and, thirdly, the lowering of costs involved in matrimonial separation. Of particular concern is the evidence coming before us that single parents and their children are most likely to face poverty or a substantial drop in their standard of living as a result of separation. By 1984, for example, the proportion of female-headed sole parent families dependent on government welfare had grown to 87 per cent from a 1974 figure of 65 per cent.

At this stage, I wish to talk about the stereotype of the typical defaulter in matters of child maintenance. I believe it is a stereotype that is causing some problems in terms of governments being able to address the real issue in a rational way. This defaulter, who is usually a male, is supposed to be working in another State, probably under a different name-all with the purpose of escaping the payment of child maintenance. In fact, the opposite is more likely to be true. Most live in the same city, work at their usual jobs, but pay irregularly. Attempts to receive the full entitlement by the custodial parent often involve expensive and time consuming legal action. Given that the average maintenance payment is set at about $20 per week, the result of successful legal actions hardly seems worth while. Nor is the defaulter always a man on a low income. He may be a professional who uses every legal trick to avoid his responsibilities. According to recent research reported in an Institute of Family Studies document entitled `Settling Up-Property and Income Distribution after Divorce in Australia', affluent men are often those who are least likely to be paying for the support of their wives, despite the fact that, as this discussion paper points out, most men are substantially better off after divorce than their former spouses bringing up their children.

According to Ruth Weston from the Family Studies Institute, women who choose to be full time housewives and/or mothers are the women most likely to have difficulties gaining employment after divorce due to a disrupted work history and/or their lack of work experience. A very high proportion of women in this category have been married to high income earning husbands. The development is not surprising. More affluent men tend to have assets and income tied up in areas which are excluded from the divorce settlement: Businesses, often incorporated with such complexity that even the tax man must have difficulty following the trail, superannuation policies, and a life-style where personal possessions, from cars to houses and furnishings, are considered part of those almost untouchable business assets.

Many women in this category have been ignorant partners in the associated companies and either have little or no knowledge of the business arrangements or, in some cases, have been deliberately excluded from any effective access or power. To receive justice on separation, those women are then forced to take expensive legal action, a course which they often do not have the financial or emotional resources to follow through to a satisfactory conclusion. The division of barrister and solicitor functions in some State legal systems exacerbates the problem still further. The net result is that those affected women often accept settlements which are inadequate and unjust in terms of their own contribution to the failed marriage or in terms of their future capacity to care financially for their children. I am raising this issue because public discussion about child maintenance and the family law in general has often been plagued by the use of stereotypes, which has inhibited sensible government action in this area.

In matters relating to child maintenance, the suggestion in the discussion paper that the major departmental responsibility should be carried by the Australian Taxation Office is a good one. The Tax Office has readier access and greater powers to investigate the affairs of individuals involved in divorce. Of course, what is needed is a mechanism which makes it possible to achieve a true and more cost-efficient assessment of the non-custodial parent's financial position. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Order! The honourable senator's time has expired.

Title: CHILD SUPPORT: Discussion Paper and Text of Ministerial Statement
Date: 16 October 1986
Speaker: Chaney Sen The Hon F.M. (LP, WA)
Source: Senate

Senator CHANEY (Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.16) - I welcome the fact that this report on child support is before us. I differ from Senator Aulich in his commendation of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). Indeed, I would condemn the Minister and the Government for their pathetic failure to act over 3 1/2 years on a matter which has been seen by the whole community as one of some urgency. The fact is that the measures that were brought forward by the previous Government in the Budget of 1982-83 were set aside by this Government. The national maintenance inquiry produced a report of some 400 pages in February 1984. It took the Government a year and a half before a Cabinet sub-committee was established to examine options for reforming current child maintenance arrangements, and that has finally resulted in the discussion paper before us now. So we have had 3 1/2 years without any action by this Government on a matter which, as I say, is widely perceived in the community as requiring urgent action.

A few simple statistics in the discussion paper make it clear why there is community concern. As a proportion of all families in Australia, sole parent families rose from 9 per cent in the mid-1970s to 14 per cent in 1986. Between 1974 and 1986 the number of sole parent families increased by 73 per cent, from 183,000 to 316,000. The proportion of sole parents on a pension or benefit went from 65 per cent to 85 per cent over the last decade. Presently there are about a quarter of a million people receiving the supporting parents' benefit, with 450,000 children in their care. Less than 30 per cent of these parents have any additional source of income. Government expenditure on supporting parents has risen by 245 per cent in real terms since 1973-74, from $160m to $1,757m in 1985-86, with less than 30 per cent of custodial parents receiving regular cash payments from non-custodial parents. In only a minority of cases does a court order or maintenance agreement exist, and less than half of court orders for maintenance made are complied with. Unmarried sole parents are less likely to receive maintenance payments-only 10 per cent do-and divorced sole parent pensioners are most likely to receive maintenance payments, but even there, the figure is only 36 per cent.

This is a matter of deep public concern for two basic reasons. The first concerns sole parents themselves and, even more importantly, their children. It has been known for years that that group is more likely than almost any other to suffer poverty and hardship and to need to beg. So this has been seen as an urgent item on the welfare agenda for years-hence the moves taken by the previous Government to start some action. There is also concern, however, on a second front, and that is for the wider community, which has shouldered the rapidly increasing burden of financing income support for them.

The report canvasses most of the key issues which have to be considered and on which this Government will have to take action. I trust that the period of consultation allowed-the seven weeks or so-will assist the Government in achieving answers. The point I want to make, in this short contribution, is the shameful political and careless way in which this Government has approached this problem. We introduced amendments to the legislation in 1983 which were voted down by the Government and the Australian Democrats. Subsequently Senator Durack introduced a private member's Bill which encompassed three key areas of change. It is worth noting that those three areas of change received little attention and were dismissed by Government speakers when addressing the legislation. Yet now we find in this paper acknowledgment of the three areas that Senator Durack's Bill proposed to challenge as being key areas for consideration.

In the debate on the Family Law Act in 1983 we sought to have the provisions which require the Family Court to take into account the availability of social welfare benefits in determining the maintenance obligations of non-custodial parents deleted from the Act. We failed in that but the Government-again, it was criticised when we brought the matter back into this place in Senator Durack's private member's Bill-now acknowledges in this discussion paper the structure of social welfare benefits and the deliberately low maintenance orders and agreements consequently made through the Family Court as being a key issue.

The second issue addressed in our Bill and now belatedly recognised by the Government as requiring attention and action concerns the priority of obligations facing non-custodial parents for the provision of support for their original and subsequent families. The third concerns the relationship between the division of property and the determination of maintenance. I welcome the signs that the Government may be stirring itself in this area. The poverty suffered by sole parents and their children and the excessive burdens of taxpayers stand as a condemnation of the Government's inattention to this matter over 3 1/2 years.

Title: CHILD SUPPORT: Discussion Paper and Text of Ministerial Statement
Date: 16 October 1986
Speaker: Crowley Sen R.A. (ALP, SA, Government)
Source: Senate

Senator CROWLEY (South Australia)(3.21) - I am not surprised by Senator Chaney's opening remarks in his contribution, but I think it is tied with the possibility of two criticisms. One is that his Government had seven years and why did it do nothing about this for all that time? His Government left us with such a mess when we came into government that it was not possible to address everything straight away. There is no doubt about that.

Senator Walters - That one has been done to death.

Senator CROWLEY - Thank you for that contribution, Senator Walters. If only death would overtake the honourable senator. We have to say this again and again for the people to appreciate it. This Government came into office facing the chaos left behind by seven years of Fraser Government. In that time that Government did not address the maintenance question and yet its members have the gall to carp and criticise this Government, particularly in the face of this document about which some very useful comments have been made, including by Senator Chaney.

I think the debate about maintenance ought not to be too distracted by the tedious points of who should get the kudos. I think it is very important to appreciate that this document does give a focus for all of the critical issues involved in this area so that community discussion can focus on those issues that are indeed very well covered together in this booklet. Community response will be welcomed. In fact by some of us it will be sought very particularly and very actively. It is the Government's firm belief that, as is stated in the conclusions on page 41 of the report, titled `Child Support. A discussion paper on child maintenance':

. . . all children have a basic right to be supported by both their parents to the best of their ability.

I think that sentence needs to be underlined and reiterated. The rights and responsibilities of parents are recognised by this Government. Parents do have to accept responsibility for the financial assistance towards bringing up their children. The consequence of divorce particularly and marriage breakdown is the principal reason why we have such an increase in the number of sole parents. It is sometimes believed in the community that we have sole parents because lots of younger women are not seeking to be married. This document points out that that is a misunderstanding and that the majority of sole parents are the consequence of marriage breakdowns. Of course, as has been said by previous speakers, the consequence of those marriage breakdowns means that many of those single parent families-some 94 to 96 per cent of single parents are women looking after children-are now likely to be living in considerable poverty in this community. That is not to say that poverty did not exist prior to 1973 or 1974, particularly for women who were supporting parents. What we now have is the very hard statistical data to make that unmistakeable. Senator Chaney drew our attention to-this is on page 7 of this document-the dramatic increase in the number of families likely to live in poverty because of the increase in the number of sole parent families, particularly since the early 1970s and until 1985.

As well, an expectation has somehow developed in the community that the responsibility of non-custodial parents has not been insisted on to the extent that many non-custodial parents have abandoned their responsibilities for maintenance and have left it to the taxpayer to pick up the responsibility for the maintenance, care and provision of children in our community. That bill has risen from $160m in 1973-74 to $1,757m in 1985-86, which is an increase of 245 per cent in real terms. I think the Government is very concerned that not only will there be a response from the community on this discussion paper but that there will also be action taken by government to require the responsibility of parents, particularly non-custodial parents, to contribute to the maintenance of their children.

Debate continues.....part 2