Senate proceedings 14 October 1996

Senate proceedings 14 October 1996

Title: CHILD SUPPORT: Discussion Paper on Child Maintenance
Date: 14 October 1986
Speaker: Durack Sen The Hon P.D. (LP, WA)
Source: Senate

Senator DURACK (Western Australia)(5.25) I move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

The Government has tabled this discussion paper on this very important subject which has been of concern to the Opposition for a number of years. This matter was taken up by the Joint Select Committee into the Family Law Act 1975, which the Opposition established. That Committee recommended a collection agency for maintenance because it was quite apparent, during the deliberations of that Committee some years ago, that there was not an adequate means of enforcing the payment of maintenance by non-custodial parents. Indeed all sorts of schemes were being entered into whereby non-custodial parents were able to maximise the contribution of the taxpayer towards the financial problems that arise from a breakup of a marriage. Towards the end of the Fraser Government, which was in office when that report was made, both the Department of Social Security and the Attorney-General's Department were working on schemes to implement the recommendation of that Committee.

When this Government came into office it virtually ignored this problem for some time. The Attorney-General's Department had an inquiry into the question of a maintenance agency being established, and reported on it in 1984, nearly two years ago. But in fact the Government did nothing about that until the end of last year, when it set up a ministerial committee, which has now come forward with this proposal contained in this discussion paper. The paper makes the very clear statement that it is the Government's firm belief that all children have a basic right to be supported by both their parents to the best of their ability. The Opposition fully supports that principle. We are certainly very interested in the scheme that is outlined here for deductions at source through the taxation system of schedule of maintenance which people would pay according to their income. However, the Government has not firmly decided to adopt that principle but it has decided to ask for comment on a number of problems.

These are problems that, as I have said, have been identified by the Opposition, namely the inadequacy of the level of maintenance, the problems in the Family Law Act which require courts to take into account the availability of pensions to the custodial parent as against obligations which should be met by the non-custodial parent and several other deficiencies in that Act. The Opposition sought, in the debate on the Family Law Act in 1983, to remove the provision of the Act which requires courts to take into account the availability of social security payments to custodial parents, and at that time that amendment was in fact opposed by the Government. Towards the end of last year, on behalf of the Opposition, I introduced further amendments to the Family Law Act to give effect to a number of problems which the Government has at long last identified in this debate. Although that Bill was not fully debated in the Senate, Senator Evans, on behalf of the Government, rejected some of its provisions, including the removal of this provision, which this discussion paper now identifies, along with other mat- ters in the Family Law Act, as a very serious problem. These matters were the subject of proposed Opposition amendments to that Bill.

Certainly, we are pleased to find that the Government has finally been converted to the principle that it espouses in this paper, a principle which has been firm policy of the Opposition for some time and to which we have sought to give effect by steps taken in this chamber to amend the Family Law Act to, as we could not do in opposition, establish a maintenance collection agency or system. The Government has certainly gone one step further in proposing this maintenance collection system. It is an interesting proposal and one to which the Opposition will certainly give close attention. I hope that the community will respond and comment on this paper.

Title: CHILD SUPPORT: Discussion Paper on Child Maintenance
Date: 14 October 1986
Speaker: Haines Sen J. (AD, SA)
Source: Senate

Senator HAINES (South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(5.31) —I think that the Government deserves some congratulations for bringing forward a discussion paper on a matter which is of considerable concern to a large number of people in Australia. The paper, is, in fact, a reflection not only of national concern about the welfare of children but also, as it acknowledges, a reflection of international concern about the welfare of children following the breakdown of marriages. New Zealand and a number of States in the United States, including Wisconsin, have in past years had a look at the problems that have developed as marriages break down, particularly with regard to the care, maintenance and welfare of children. It is appropriate that this discussion paper on child maintenance be entitled `Child Support'. It is worth while for us to remember that our primary concern about the breakdown of a marriage from which there have been children is that those children are adequately supported. We must not lose sight of that fact that the care and support of children, and the parents' primary responsibility for that, is a major issue facing us.

From time to time we get rather excited about other issues resulting from the breakdown of marriage, including relationships between the parents, the problems with access, the damage that one parent can do to another by bad- mouthing the non-custodial parent, and so on. In doing that, we sometimes lose sight of the fact that the most relevant factor is the welfare and well-being of the children of that union. That, of course, is what we have to focus on and it is what this discussion paper focuses on. That is what the Government has asked interested people in the community to focus on when they respond to this paper. It is unfortunate that the Government has given a fairly limited time for community comment. It is an issue that has excited considerable concern-not always, I might add, concern that is directed at the welfare of the children-in the community in recent times.

There is no doubt that we have to look at things such as the level of maintenance that is paid for each child when a marriage breaks down, and the regularity of payment of the maintenance to those children, and a number of other questions have to be resolved with regard to whose responsibility it is to maintain those children, what other things get in the way of it, and how those issues can be resolved. We are faced with the fact that some quarter of a million people in this country are sole parents and they have the care of almost half a million children. Those people who are dependent on pensions and benefits as their only source of income are essentially poverty-stricken. It is a very large group in a population the size of Australia's. It is something that we ought not to be particularly proud of. Those people, as sole parents, often have, as this paper acknowledges, limited access to employment, because job opportunities are decreasing and there are in particular limited opportunities for part time employment which many women-and it is mostly women who are sole parents-need if they have several children, some of whom may be at school, some of whom may be at pre-school. There is also the compounding factor of limited access to child care. Those things need to be addressed before we can achieve any sort of equity as far as the welfare of children who are involved in a marriage breakdown is concerned.

The main problem, as the paper outlines, is the irregularity, often the non-payment, of maintenance. Well over half of the families do not receive the maintenance payments to which they are entitled. There are limited ways of ensuring payment. This paper canvasses a variety of ways, from the New Zealand model to the Wisconsin model, and so on, in which these things can be corrected. The low level of maintenance payment per child is also a problem that needs to be looked at, and the frequency with which the maintenance payer gives priority to debt commitments other than maintenance payments. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.