Main page

Senator CARR (Victoria) (4.58 p.m.) --In speaking to this report I would first like to thank the members of the secretariat, who have so ably and professionally assisted the work of the Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Law Issues. I am sure they were instrumental in ensuring the production of such a high quality document which has canvassed so many complex issues in such a way as to highlight some real solutions to those problems. They may not be the solutions that everyone wants to see; they may not be the complete answers that we are looking for. But in terms of this report, they indicate a substantial body of work.

The research undertaken by the secretariat is in some cases probably the most up-to-date, most detailed research that has been undertaken in this area of family law. In terms of family studies, it is some of the most detailed research work that is available to date. In some senses it is difficult for other areas to challenge the expertise that has been available to this committee. Those involved in the professional areas of investigation could learn a substantial amount from the work undertaken by the secretariat of this committee.

Secondly, I would like to thank the other members of the committee I have worked with. It is one of the most beneficial committees I have been involved in in the period that I have been in this parliament. There have been very valuable meetings on a regular basis where people from all the different shades of opinion were able to speak freely to one another, communicate effectively and present quite complex and difficult issues to one another, and produce a result which is substantially agreed, with the odd difference which I am sure others will speak of.

The Child Support Agency has now been in operation for 6 1/2 years. It was established on 1 June 1988, and it is appropriate that this parliament undertake a comprehensive review of its operations. Given the level of public interest, as measured by the 6,197 submissions, it is quite clear that this review is long overdue. The largest number of submissions that has ever been received by a parliamentary committee was presented to this committee and reflected very deep concerns within the community about the nature of this scheme.

I would like to reiterate Senator Reid's comments. There is no-one on this committee who would challenge the benefits of the social reforms introduced by the establishment of the Child Support Agency. The fundamental commitment right across this parliament is to the continued work of the Child Support Agency. It has to be acknowledged that there have been enormous achievements in this area of social policy. However, I think it is also very important that parliament understands that the nature of the work we undertake in establishing government bodies like these has to be measured in terms of the impact on the community which is affected.

In this particular area of social policy we found that 90 per cent of custodial parents--a very large number of clients--are sole parent pensioners, extremely low income people. In terms of the non-custodial parents, 81 per cent of the client base earns less than average weekly earnings. The agency is a body that this parliament has established essentially to police the social, the economic, the familiar relationships between working class people in this country. It is a body that--whether or not we understood it the time--is effectively geared towards the very poorest and, in many respects, the weakest in our community. It is because of the nature of the issues that are involved--the protection of children and the provision of basic financial survival assistance for children and custodial and non-custodial parents--that we can understand that the stakes are very high.

The government--the state agency--has contact with people at a time in their lives, immediately after separation, often when they are undergoing a most severe trauma and when relationships and emotions are at their very rawest. It should be understood that emotions are going to be at their highest and levels of tension are going to be at their greatest. But we are also dealing with people who often are least able to express their demands and their grievances and defend their interests when it comes to dealing with the state apparatus. For me, it is a bit of a challenge in a personal sense because I am one of those who believe that the state is the best vehicle for liberating people and for ensuring that they get access to proper services, quality of life and adequate standards of living.

When the state operates as has occurred through this agency and becomes effectively a harsh, oppressive instrument, and people react in ways in which they are not able to defend themselves and which are often not in their own interests, it becomes quite a conflict for my philosophical position. This is a case where the state has not always been able to present the best possible position to ensure that people do have the best services that are available.

The committee has once again come up against that basic problem that in family law there are no absolutes. We have tried to provide a report which reflects the complexities of the issues, and provides real balance in the interests that are being expressed between separated and intact families, children of first and subsequent families, custodial and non-custodial parents and parents and taxpayers generally. This report seeks to establish a balance that allows for this complex interrelationship between social and economic forces that are measured in the way the state operates by instituting laws concerning taxation, social security, family law and the Child Support Scheme itself. It is in that context that we understand, when we say there have been some achievements, just how great those achievements have been.

The most fundamental achievement of all is that there has been a successful transformation in attitudes within this community about the way in which there should a universal system for the collection of child support and, therefore, a change in the attitudes about the way in which parents should take responsibility for the support of their children. We have discovered that this change in attitude has not necessarily been as a result of a perfect scheme. In fact, there are huge weaknesses in the way in which this scheme currently operates. I take the view that there has to be substantial reform to that scheme to protect a very valuable social reform in total.

What has to be understood is that because there are so many people trapped within the scheme who are often so weak, special measures have to be taken by the government to ensure that the interests of both custodial and non-custodial parents are protected. It is ironic that the wealthiest people in our society--the people that can afford the lawyers, and can afford and have access to the education and the various facilities that wealth brings with it--are able to stay outside of this scheme. So we have a scheme that is universal in theory that applies only to the poor. In that sense there is a fundamental inequity.

There are many other inequities in this scheme as it currently exists. If we look at its very objectives which are stated within the legislation, we begin to understand that there are some unintended consequences from this legislation. There was talk of adequate support being available to all children not living with parents; that non-custodial parents contribute and support according to the capacity to pay; and that the Commonwealth's expenditure is limited to the minimum necessary to ensure adequate support for children. That often provides conflicting priorities, which inevitably means that there is confusion surrounding the varying objectives of this program.

If we look at the weaknesses in this scheme, we see that there is a profound sense in which there is a bias against non-custodial parents in this program. There were 11.2 per cent of submissions which indicated very grave concerns about the way the scheme operates in practice--in particular, the objectives of the scheme which refer only to the capacity of non-custodial parents to pay when in fact they ought to refer to the capacity of both parents to pay for the support of their children.

There is a whole range of institutional weaknesses within the scheme as it currently exists which go to these questions of basic inadequacy. These include, for instance, the very simple matter of the disregarded income, as it is referred to, of the custodial parents which, of course, is substantially different from the disregarded income that is included for calculation of this scheme for non-custodial parents. There are many other weaknesses. There are huge administrative weaknesses within the scheme. Senator Reid has already referred to the substantial concerns about the operation of the Child Support Agency.

In many respects, that has to be understood, given the circumstances of the agency's creation and operation on a daily basis. In fact, the case load for the Child Support Agency is growing at 7,000 per month. The rate of growth of clients of this agency makes it extremely difficult for a government body such as this to cope. One can understand the difficulties that arise.

However, our inquiry has identified serious weaknesses which point to some very serious management problems within the Child Support Agency--some very serious problems of coordination and failure to establish national policy guidelines, some very serious inadequacies in the question of staff training and some very serious weaknesses in the way in which people are treated by this government agency, which, in my judgment, is totally unacceptable. The fact is that some government agencies treat people in a way that presumes guilt and fault when the whole basis for family law in this country, at the present time, is to the contrary. However, as I said, we cannot convince people that the contrary prevails, given the way in which this agency has operated on an administrative basis and given that people get correspondence on the basis of there being a presumption of fault by one party, which in most cases is the non-custodial parent.

There are much deeper structural issues that go to the question of the formula itself, and this was the other major area of our inquiry. We received 1,505 submissions which stated that the formula was too harsh; 24.3 per cent of the record number of submissions received by the committee highlighted this problem. What was clear to us, after a very comprehensive review of the literature and investigation into this matter, was that the original work undertaken to establish the various levels within the formula was essentially very arbitrary.

There was a major problem in policy terms whereby decisions were made about the level of support and the operation of the formula. Essentially, this suggests that the consultative group was arbitrary and represented judgments made by the original consultative group which were not necessarily based upon the Australian experience. These judgments may well have suited the American experience or understandings of what was occurring in other countries, but there appears to be a substantial need for further research to be undertaken in regard to Australian conditions. I believe that significant changes need to be made in this regard.

Other issues and problems were not canvassed or understood later as unintended consequences. One of the major weaknesses of the present scheme, as far as I am concerned, is its bias against women. I know it is often said that this is a scheme which is biased against men--I have just said that in the case of non-custodial parents--but there is an inherent bias in the scheme in that it discriminates in favour of some women against other women, particularly women who are in second and subsequent families.

At the time the original legislation was brought forward, I do not think the sorts of changes that were occurring in the demography of this country were understood. What is occurring now is that most people who are divorced remarry within 2.8 years; for most women, I think the figure is three years. For most people, there is a change in circumstances which occurs very quickly. That brings a whole series of new problems. From the way the evidence points at the moment, there quite often appears to be an in-built bias within the scheme against those second families. In that sense, this scheme is biased against women, particularly women who are in second and subsequent families.

I agree with much of what Senator Reid said. But I think we have to understand that there is a need for substantial reform within the present scheme to protect it against quite serious weaknesses which are becoming evident and which were perhaps unintended at the time the legislation was originally introduced.

It has to be understood that there are very grave concerns about the interaction between social security, child support, family law and the taxation legislation. This is creating very serious work disincentives and, in my judgment, very serious social problems in the relationships of people who are trying to establish new lives and who have responsibilities for supporting children in a number of family circumstances.

Parliament has to understand the complexities of social relationships in our society today. Divorce rates are quite high and are increasing, particularly for subsequent families. There seems to be a suggestion that the effect of family law matters, particularly Child Support Agency matters, could be part of the reason why those figures are so high.

I commend this report to the Senate. I trust that it is read and digested within the community at large. I trust that the government will be able to respond quickly and introduce the necessary reforms to see that the report's recommendations are implemented.