Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to call on the parliament to agree to the need for a comprehensive review of family law and of the child support system. In the 21 months or so that I have been a member of parliament, a steady stream of angry and exhausted people have come through my door to tell me they think the system is broken. Interestingly, the ratio of men and women has been pretty even, as has the fact that all have been just as likely to break down in tears as they share their stories. Most tales involve first fighting for their children in the courts only to emerge from that process to then have to fight their ex-partners for child support. Common is the experience of an adversarial court case where children are wrenched between their parents, which is distressing for all involved.

Clearly, the zero-sum game of family law is damaging for the individuals and the community. Some constituents tell me they are at breaking point and feeling suicidal. Some say they are worn out having lost all their energy, and sometimes all of their money, in lengthy proceedings. One particular man even told me he went so far as to consider murdering the Family Court judge who decided his case and that the police had taken action against him for threatening behaviour. That nobody wins in these situations is clearly an understatement.

I meet many constituents who are struggling with the costs of living and who tell me their fears and frustrations are made worse when their child support payment turns up late or sometimes not at all. Many people rightly describe this as financial and psychological abuse often exacerbating the effect of a custody dispute. The seriousness of these types of abuse has historically been underplayed, I suggest, and this was one of the reasons I supported the government's commendable broadening of the definition of abuse last year in relation to family violence.

I heard the upsetting story from one mother who told me the father of her child uses complicated income-minimising strategies to reduce his child support liability and that she believes he will never be forced to pay the adequate amount because the Child Support Agency does not have the resources to investigate him properly. Another mother conveyed her frustration because the amount of support she receives for her daughter has been reduced under the child support formula. Because the father has other children all living in separate households, a factor totally beyond her control, her daughter gets less support. She argues that the father has a high income and could easily afford to pay the full amount, besides the fact he should have a moral obligation to look after his child. But due to a technical regulation she and her daughter have to get by with over $4,000 a year less.

Viewed from the other perspective, there are constituents who argue their child support obligations are unfair because they do not see enough of their children after a custody ruling or there are circumstances the court did not consider in allocating the obligation. For instance, I have spoken to a father on a low income who sees his children only a couple of nights a week and, as a consequence, misses out on the family tax benefit. He thinks this is deeply unfair, especially as he only just falls under the threshold, but it was a factor that was not considered when determining how much he would owe. He also told me that his costs as a parent were higher than most people would expect because his boys' mother insists the children have two of everything—one at each household. He broke down when he told me he did not know how he was going to pay for the second set of soccer boots his boys would need on the weekend that they were in his care. It is, of course, quite common that, even when custody heavily favours one of the parents, each will need to buy a complete set of clothes, toys or sports equipment.

In another case two mothers shared their experiences of struggling to represent themselves in the courts because they cannot afford legal representation. So they are spending every moment they can studying family law, knowing that, with every hearing and argument, their family is at stake. They are doing this on top of their employment, university study, household responsibilities and, of course, looking after their children, for whom they are fighting on a daily basis.

In another case a woman's children have grown from toddlers to young adults in the time she spent fighting her ex-partner in the courts, and it has not ended yet. It is truly sad that some parents miss out on enjoying their children's childhood years—the very thing they are trying to protect—due to the time and effort required to represent themselves in court.

One thing almost all these constituents have in common is the belief that the formula used to calculate child support fails to take their particular circumstances into account. This raises the question of whether or not the method being used can be improved somehow.

I do not always agree with what I hear from people about family law and child support. However, I always sympathise with the people sitting across from me and do not doubt the genuineness of their hurt, anger and frustration. Moreover, the thing that must be remembered above all else is that, in each case, there are children involved—the innocent victims of domestic disputes. I can only imagine the toll it takes on them and how they must suffer seeing their family torn apart. In some of the worst cases the children are used as weapons against the other parent or to leverage an advantage in court. Regrettably, when the welfare of a child is set aside and they become just another pawn used to get a result, some families can forget the real reason they are battling in the courts in the first place—out of love for their children. The fact that some parents can be so blinded by the process is proof positive that the process may need adjustment.

It is hard to imagine any system being able to find an acceptable solution with two people who are determined to tear each other to pieces over differing views on their children's welfare. Nevertheless, we do owe it to mothers, fathers and, most of all, their children to be constantly reviewing the law and the system. We must be constantly asking whether one change or many can be made to make the outcomes more equitable. The opinion of legal experts and the ongoing work of organisations such as the Australian Institute of Australian Studies must be incorporated into an evolving system and the voices of families must be heard. One of my constituents contacted me with the following words:

I have suffered a long history of late, partial or non-payment of child support for my child. I have had minimal child support from a parent who holds substantial qualifications, including postgraduate degrees, but who refuses to work in a full-time capacity. I have had to go into debt to meet the medical costs of our child's chronic conditions and this has not been afforded any consideration by the current system.

That is why I am introducing this motion that calls on the government to undertake a comprehensive review of family law and the child support system and which recommends that the terms of reference of that review be formulated to ensure that the safety and wellbeing of children are paramount.

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to support the member for Denison's motion. Often in my electorate I have people come to my office and raise with me a couple of things in particular. One is their compassion for their own children and their commitments to wanting to make sure that their journey in life is supported, even though the circumstances between a husband and wife has reached a point in which they separate and in that separation have to enter into new agreements and arrangements. Often they say that there needs to be a review of some elements of the legislation which prevent them from having an opportunity to create the best possible pathway for their children.

Marriage separations can be very bitter—not in all instances, though. I do have constituents who have amicably separated, divorced and reached agreements in terms of their contribution and commitment to their children. In any relationship where there are children involved it takes two and the responsibility resides with both. But it is saddening when you see bitterness prevailing to the detriment of a child. I have often had people come to me saying, 'Why can't we just amend the act to enable us to do the things that are best for our child?' I have had people say to me, 'I pay maintenance; I am more than happy to do it. But I am frustrated because the money is not being spent for the purpose I intended it for, which is to ensure that my children have the best possible opportunities in life, including educational pathways.' Recently a couple came to see me and they spoke about the breakdown of a relationship and the coming together of these two people in a new partnership in life, and I made the point that their commitment in supporting their children was important. They felt that the act and the interpretation that is given to the act, and some of the orders that prevail, prevented them from entering into a shared discussion. What they wanted was a better system that would enable a supporting parent to have a say in their children's future and their pathway.

I read with great interest the Fatherhood Foundation's newsletters that come to me, partly because of the number of people who have come to me and said, 'I've reached a point where I'm contemplating taking my life.' I find that sad in this context of a society because I think that it is beholden upon us to review legislation, to look at what the impediments are that we can make better and, through that process, redesign those areas of the legislation and the administrative arrangements that cause great angst. We cannot legislate for human behaviour. But common sense should prevail in the way in which we look for solutions that encourage an opportunity for a family that has separated to look at new pathways. I often write letters on behalf of constituents advocating for support from the CSA, and we send letters to the Australian Taxation Office based on issues raised. I appreciate the legal requirements. Nevertheless, I see a constant theme of frustration.

It would be good if the member for Denison's motion were supported by both sides, and it would be good if we could review and address those things that are not quite perfect. But we are dealing with a very complex area in which legislation cannot mend broken hearts or bitterness. There we have to tread carefully, but I think that our bottom line is that we have to look at the outcome for children. Based on the evidence of work by overseas people and by the relevant research institutes in Australia, there are strong indications that children living in dysfunctional contexts tend to take a pathway that is detrimental to themselves in terms of their education, their career pathway and their health. I hope that we will transcend the differences and look at this opportunity to improve the elements that are important—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 13:04 to 13:38

Like all members of this parliament, I have received emails from individuals who have expressed their personal concerns in respect of family law and the child support system. I read the Dads in Distress Support Services newsletter with great interest because it provides constructive articles which tackle the issues of inspiring fathers and encouraging families. Dads in Distress Support Services volunteers have saved untold men on the brink of suicide and seen many children reunited with their fathers and extended families. As I indicated earlier, one of the greatest opportunities we have, and a privilege we have, is to look at the way in which we can ensure that the love accorded those parents who give their love to children is not diminished by separation.

The campaigners have long complained that fathers can be excluded from their legal right to see their children, particularly when a split has been acrimonious. By creating a new insight for children, ministers hope that judges ruling on custody disputes will ensure more equal access. This arises out of an amendment or a change to legislation in the United Kingdom, where children in the UK won the legal right to see both parents after divorce on the basis that it was the best possible outcome for children. Except in those cases where it would be of detriment to them, then I would suspect those courts would rule, based on the evidence, that it is most paramount. I also read with interest that a journalist, Loughton, last night told the Daily Telegraph:

The state cannot create happy families, or broker amicable break-ups. But if children are having decent, loving parents pushed out of their lives, we owe it to them to change the system that lets this happen.

I would hope that the review the member for Denison has proposed in this motion does get some serious consideration. Having experienced a number of constituents coming in and talking through their heartbreak, their concerns and their frustrations, I would certainly like to see some way that we can alleviate some of the frustration.

I think it is through frustration that we see inappropriate behaviour occur, and that often leads to a set of consequences that none of us really enjoys. Quite clearly, ordinary living and working arrangements make an equal division impossible and undesirable in all but a small minority of cases. In all of this, the most important thing remains the principle that the child's welfare is paramount and is always considered, and it must not be diluted. If we change and consider removing some of that despair—although we cannot remove it totally—then I think it would be far better for some of the families who are affected.

In closing I want to say that I welcome the member for Denison's motion. I certainly support the four tranches of what he recommends. Let us hope that motion goes forward and that we as members of this House look at the possibility of easing some of the pain and hurt and create the opportunities that need to be accorded to all children—that the love of one parent should never be excluded where the opportunity prevails, and that the company, companionship and the learning that we take from either parent is there intrinsically for the future so that it encourages a strong and healthy individual who can understand the antagonism but at the same time share in the love of both a mother and a father.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 13:43 to 16:00