Senate proceedings 16 October 1996

Senate proceedings 16 October 1996

Title: CHILD SUPPORT: Discussion Paper and Text of Ministerial Statement
Date: 16 October 1986
Speaker: Vanstone Sen A.E. (LP, SA)
Source: Senate

Senator VANSTONE (South Australia)(3.25) - It is almost in a state of stunned disbelief that I rise to speak on this matter. I could not believe my ears at the former speaker's contribution--

Senator Button - I can't believe your ears either.

Senator VANSTONE - I could not believe what my ears heard, Senator Button, that a Government member would wish that death would over take a member of this chamber. It is one of the most childish and insulting contributions I have heard-only one of the most because I have heard a number from the Government, but that one in particular stands out.

I endorse the comments made by my Leader, Senator Chaney, on the paper on child support that the Government has released. The Government has had the report since 1984. Since then its Cabinet sub-committee has looked at it and no doubt it employed consultants at vast expense and now it has produced this report which has, as Senator Crowley said, focused on some of the issues that need to be resolved before the Government can proceed. Nonetheless, after all this time these issues are unresolved. It is simply not adequate for the Government to say that this is as far as it has come because it now needs to consult with the community. Seven weeks is not sufficient time in which to consult with the community.

As Senator Crowley pointed out, responses from the community will be welcomed and, as she further pointed out, they will be sought by some of us. I would like to be one of those people who would seek community response to this report. As a consequence of that desire I have tried to acquire further copies of this report so that I can distribute it through the community and ask people what they think. But I can get only 4, 5 or 6 reports from the office of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). For the Government on the one hand to pretend that this report is released as a discussion paper and that it is seeking views from the community and on the other hand to produce a report, sufficient copies of which are not available to allow that consultation process to proceed, is ludicrous in the extreme.

Another point that I do not think is adequately addressed in this paper is this: When the Government finally does decide on the resolution of these issues on which community views are being sought, it will presumably act and remedy the situation for the children of couples who will divorce from that point on. However, there remains the problem of the people on the supporting parent benefit, generally women in poverty, as sole parents with children who will not be assisted by the outcome of this report.

I am not suggesting that any retrospective legislation be introduced which would affect the rights and responsibilities of people who have settled their arrangements on the basis of existing laws, but I am suggesting that something more could be done than what this report suggests. I look forward to the Government, as soon as it has dealt with this issue, dealing with the issue of the many people now living in poverty as a consequence of the inadequacy of our law in this respect.

Title: CHILD SUPPORT: Discussion Paper and Text of Ministerial Statement
Date: 16 October 1986
Speaker: Reid Sen M.E. (LP, ACT)
Source: Senate

Senator REID (Australian Capital Territory)(3.30) - This is an important document which we are at last considering, because I think most people have been aware for a long time that it is necessary for us to amend the law as far as the payment of maintenance and the enforcement of maintenance orders are concerned. Senator Chaney has outlined our position on the matter in the past and has highlighted the fact that the Government did not respond to the opportunities it previously had to make some significant changes. Senator Crowley perhaps should also note that the Family Law Act only came into operation in 1976, so some considerable time was necessary to elapse before it was possible to assess what adjustments needed to be made. It is a fact that a number of children are living in poverty as a result of marriage breakdowns. When we assess what changes need to be made in the area of maintenance payments we have to be very careful that we do not just focus on one group of people who are in this category. There are some children from families which were living almost in poverty before the family broke up, and no changes in maintenance arrangements will help them a great deal. The responsibility for many of those children lies squarely within the social security system and will have to be addressed there. Of course, that is not the case with all children. We know that a lot of people pay maintenance, men and women, and accept a very real responsibility for their children. I think we also in that area need to be careful that we do not embark upon setting up formulas for establishing maintenance, setting up enforcement procedures, which intrude into the areas where maintenance is working properly. People whose marriages have failed but who both accept a very real responsibility in working together in a way that gives their children the very best opportunity should have the opportunity to make their own arrangement and see that it works. But having identified those two groups, those extremes, there are cases where maintenance is not paid where it ought to be and is not capable of being collected as it ought to be.

We have to remember that we are dealing with human beings and that as a result of marriage breakdowns there will be occasions when both parties will be vindictive. It is necessary in establishing formulas, new rules and enforcement procedures that somehow we get around that problem, so that a woman who wants to pursue her husband cannot do so in a way that is directed more by vindictiveness than by the welfare of the children or, on the other side, so that a man does not refuse to pay maintenance because he is attempting to get back at his wife. It is the children who will suffer most. It will be very difficult to draw up formulas that get it right. For that reason, although this matter is urgent, I suggest that to allow only from now until the end of November for submissions to be made flies in the face of what has to be done. There are many groups in the community which have looked at this problem and which have prepared papers. They now need to look at this problem in the light of what is before us and within the guidelines of what the Government has invited them to address themselves to.

The question of access has been mentioned. Nobody would suggest that access and maintenance should be tied together, but we cannot prepare any formula for the payment of maintenance and ignore the fact that access is frequently withheld and is used in a vindictive manner. There is no doubt that that is often the case. While addressing the question of maintenance one must look at the arrangements that can be made for access to children in some of the very difficult cases which presently are before the courts.

The Government has set out in paragraph 3 of the tabling statement the issues on which views are particularly sought. I think it is a pity that in that there has been no reference to taking into account the capacity of a custodial parent to pay. There are instances where the custodial parent has a better capacity to pay than the non-custodial parent. I would not want anyone to think that because it is the non-custodial parent's maintenance that is particularly being addressed that that should be ignored. It is referred to in passing under item (c) as to whether the custodial parent's financial circumstances should be considered and if so how. The present Act requires a court assessing maintenance to take into account the needs of the children and the capacity of parents to pay. Of course, the needs of the children still must be very much up front when we start considering contributions to the support of the children from each of the parents. We have to have a formula which takes into account the fact that at different ages children have different needs and demands. We have to have a formula which is capable, while not being abused, of being adjusted to meet these different matters. There is a great deal more that could be said. It is an important report.

Title: CHILD SUPPORT: Discussion Paper and Text of Ministerial Statement
Date: 16 October 1986
Speaker: Walters Sen M.S. (LP, TAS)
Source: Senate

Senator WALTERS (Tasmania)(3.35) - The reason for this discussion paper, `Child Support', is that in 1975 this Senate passed the Family Law Act that gave the judges, when deciding on maintenance, a requirement to take into account the eligibility of the supporting parent for the supporting parent's benefit. Judges are not entitled to ignore the fact that there is an eligibility, when deciding on matters of maintenance. In 1980 the then Fraser Government set up a joint select committee to review the Family Law Act. As a result of those deliberations we brought forward recommendations to cover the area of maintenance. Those recommendations were in the process of being legislated for when we went out of office and the Labor Government came in.

Because the Labor Government did not take any action at all in this area, Senator Durack introduced a private member's Bill in which it was suggested that the requirement for a judge to take into account the eligibility for a supporting parent's benefit when deciding maintenance should be taken out of the Family Law Act. The Government voted against that. I do not know why because ever since it has been beating its breast and saying that it should not be in there. It has now had two committees look at it. As has already been stated, this Cabinet sub-committee on maintenance has reported and the Government has had this report for some time. We know that 40 per cent of maintenance is not paid in full. We know that those who refuse to pay maintenance say they refuse to pay for a number of reasons. Some of these reasons have already been mentioned by Senator Reid. On matters of access they say: `If I'm not given access that has been attributed to me by a judge-the judge said I must have it-and I have not been able to get access easily from the mother looking after the children, I refuse to pay the maintenance'. This place cannot legislate for human behaviour. We have never been able to legislate to make parents responsible for their children. If they decide that they are not going to be responsible for their children we should make some effort, and we can make it easier for the law to place the responsibility where it should be placed, that is, on both parents.

I hope that the discussion paper will be distributed widely. It is important that people who are affected by this discussion paper be able to put their views to the Government. I hope that as a result of this discussion paper we will be able to work out the most appropriate way of gathering maintenance. Many suggestions are floating around the community that maintenance should be gathered either through the Department of Social Security or through the Australian Taxation Office. It is essential that we have that input by people who are affected in this area. I certainly hope that we will not go on and on, and that the Government will not linger in deciding this issue. It is imperative that something be done very quickly.