Main page

Mr HOLLIS (Throsby) (4.49 p.m.)--I raise again the issue of disruption to people's lives caused by the often insensitive way the child support system works. Over the last few months a number of media articles have been very critical of non-custodial parents and their claim for a fairer deal in regard to child support. Because I have received many representations on this matter--as, no doubt, all of my colleagues have--I encouraged the establishment of a fairness in child support group in the Illawarra. Despite what some critics in the Illawarra say, this group is not a `men only' group. Both men and women established this group following a public meeting that I convened.

People involved in FICS are making a few reasonable demands of the child support system. One of the most important is the way child support contributions are assessed. Contributions should be assessed on a parent's net yearly wage or salary, not on their gross earnings. Many argue that there must be greater accountability for the money. Many people have to work overtime to make their commitments--that is, when overtime is available--to make up for the shortfall in their pay at the end of each fortnight, but this increases their assessable income. For many people it is a catch-22 situation: what is the point of working overtime when your payments will go up? People come and say to me all the time, `I would be better off going away somewhere on the dole.' This is happening time and time again.

It is true that few people I see in my office are satisfied with the current child support legislation. The child support issue is the final straw for many people following a difficult relationship breakdown, property settlement and access battle. The people who come to see me--and I am sure my colleagues will agree--are angry, frustrated and bitter.

What concerns me is that bureaucracy causes the bitterness generated by so many cases. I have great sympathy for the workers in the Child Support Agency. Managing the system is not an easy position to be in. They are also the focal point for much anger and bitterness. People feel as if they are constantly bashing their heads against a brick wall, that nobody listens and no-one understands their problems. It is very rare for me to hear from any parent who does not want to contribute to the upbringing of his or her child or children, but contributions must be assessed in a fair and reasonable way.

The other issue is that, in many cases, children are being used to hurt former partners in a relationship. Crudely put, children are being used as pawns. In no way do I want to see a return to the days when women were abandoned by male partners, leaving them with no financial support to raise the children. This was the reason why the child support legislation was originally introduced.

I never want to see a return to the days when the custodial parent was left in the financial lurch. But we must come up with a better, fairer and reasonable way to assess contributions. The bitterness and anger that stains the child support debate will be removed by just resolving this issue.

Many of the people who see me are men, and their second partner usually accompanies them. Too many non-custodial parents are unable to establish new relationships because they feel they are unable to offer their new partner security. Non-custodial parents, after paying their taxes and child support contributions, are left with very little to live on. Many cannot afford rent and return to live with their parents. Many times I have seen people who have had their own homes having to return to live with their parents after their relationships have gone wrong.

I believe the legislation as it stands today discriminates against the non-custodial parent. This covers both men and women, but it is a fact that the majority of non-custodial parents are men. Non-custodial parents from broken relationships are finding it too difficult to move on with their lives. They find it difficult to establish a second relationship. In many cases, when they succeed in establishing a second relationship, the children from this relationship are disadvantaged compared with the children of the first relationship.

I am aware of cases where the second wife or partner has had to find employment to assist her partner in meeting child support liabilities from the first relationship. Surely, this is not what the current child support legislation intended when it was introduced. In another recent case, a woman contacted me because her former husband was not paying child support at all. He happens to be a successful businessman in the Illawarra--he has four businesses in different suburbs of Wollongong. The children receive Austudy payments because of his low income but his former wife's pension entitlement has been reduced because her pension is less the income that he receives from the four businesses. It is usually men who have such relationships and often they can so arrange their financial dealings that they do not have to meet their rightful requirements.

I was surprised to read an article in the Sun-Herald of 27 September 1998 entitled `Suffer the Little Children: Tug of Love'. The article claims that non-custodial parents tend to spoil their children while on contact visits, causing problems for the child and the custodial parent. The article quotes an example:

When they're together, it's junk food and late nights and it takes days to calm Jessica down when she comes home . . . He's always buying her expensive gifts, things I just can't afford. He looks like the fun parent and I look miserable and mean.

From my experience, by the time the non-custodial parent pays out child support, there is very little left over for the parent to able to buy expensive gifts for their child.

Many non-custodial parents have expressed distress to me at not being able to afford to have their children on weekends, or the fact that they do not have a swimming pool like mum does, or decent furniture, or a car in which to take the children out for the day. Some tell me that they are embarrassed that they are unable to offer their children the same level of lifestyle as before.

It is true that many parents are using their children as psychological weapons but, again from my experience, this is often because the custodial parent refuses contact with the non-custodial parent. I believe it is important to link child support payments to access rights, not only for the non-custodial parent but also for grandparents. In a particular act of spite, some custodial parents deny access to grandparents. Often grandparents are the innocent party in this. When a relationship goes wrong, the grandparents, or the parents of the two people involved, often do not want to get involved but do want to see the grandchildren. Often, in an act of pure spite, the grandparents are denied this. Indeed, in the Illawarra there is an organisation in Dapto--not that I set it up--for grandparents just seeking access. They can do it now, but it usually results in a very lengthy and costly court battle. Again, the grandparents are being punished for the relationship between their offspring that went wrong.

Non-custodial parents, in many cases, cannot access their children simply because they do not have the funds to go to the Family Court. Some are granted access by court decision, then the custodial parent denies this, and so the matter must return to court again. It is a merry-go-round of court appearances.

The article also quotes Kathleen Swinbourne, spokesperson on family issues for the Women's Electoral Lobby and also President of the Sole Parents Union. She has described non-custodial men as `vocal, active, disaffected and disgruntled'. Who would wonder that they would be like that? Of course they are! I invite Kathleen Swinbourne to sit in on some interviews in my office, and then she might understand the emotions of some of these men.

Furthermore, Ms Swinbourne is quoted as watching the rise of the `disgruntled dads' movement' with dismay. This issue is complex enough already without having it turned into a battle of the sexes. It is well beyond the time to take the cocktail of emotions out of this debate and look for fair and reasonable outcomes in child support. We are in danger of creating a generation of children who will have their loyalties tested between their parents. They deserve much better.

The thing that concerns me most about this is the tremendous bitterness that is in people when they come to my office. One of the things that is wrong with the child support system is that we have tried to find a legal solution to an emotional matter. I do not have the answer to it, but I do not think the answer is in the very legalistic nature of the way in which we deal with child support. We are dealing with an emotional matter--a matter between two individuals--and too often the children are used as pawns to score points off the particular parties in the bitterness that is caused by the break-up. I must say that the bitterness is continuing. Unless we do something about the child support system, we are going to have a lot of very confused children and a lot of very disgruntled non-custodial parents, who are often men.