Mr BRADFORD(12.38 p.m.) —I read the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs with a great deal of interest. Obviously the problem we have in our country with youth suicide is a very serious one indeed. This report, and the seminar which led to it, is a very worthwhile contribution to our understanding in this country of the serious nature of the problem that we face.

Unfortunately, as with many of the serious problems we have in our country, it seems to me that we talk a lot about them without actually doing much about them. What we seem to do is to talk about what the problem is and then very often seek to rationalise it or put bandaids on it, rather than getting to the fundamental causes of the problem and doing something about it.

I suspect—and I am not trying to be unkind, because I really do believe this is a valuable contribution—that already we have seen a reaction to this report and to the problem that again seems to me to some extent to be not getting to the fundamental causes of the problem. We have a national youth suicide prevention program in place which will result in the expenditure of a large amount of money. It seems as though the reaction to a problem often is to spend a lot of money on it, and the more money you put into it somehow that is a greater recognition of the extent of the problem.

The solution to some of these problems is money. The solution to many problems is resources, and that certainly has been the reaction to this problem, with a strategy that allocates millions of dollars to rural and regional youth counselling services, millions of dollars to Lifeline and Kids Help Line, millions of dollars to programs for parents, millions of dollars for a youth suicide prevention and education and training program and so on.

I am not condemning that expenditure of money, and it may be helpful. I am sure it could be demonstrated that those things are going to be helpful, but the point is that this report very clearly identifies the causes of the problem. I think Associate Professor Baume's contribution was a very worthwhile one. I know him and I believe the work that he does in this particular area, particularly his desire to establish a national approach to the collection of data, is very worth while. He identifies in his contribution the causes of the problem, and these are they: a high divorce rate, high youth unemployment, high female employment—that is interesting and I will deal with each of these in turn—extremely high alcohol consumption, a high number of unwanted pregnancies and low church or religious participation.

The first problem that Professor Baume identifies is a high divorce rate. I just want to note that. An article came across my desk yesterday which summarises the extent of that problem as well as any other document. The number of divorces in Australia has quadrupled over the past 20 years. Last year, Australia had the highest divorce rate since no-fault divorce laws were introduced in 1976. We have also recorded the lowest number of marriages per capita this century. Last year, Australia had the third highest divorce rate in the world, 2.9 per 1,000 people, just behind America with 4.6 and the United Kingdom with 3.0. If we accept—Professor Baume makes the point and I think the report reinforces it—that there is a correlation between youth suicide rates and divorce rates, then part of the answer to the problem obviously is to look at the problem of divorce in Australia because it is such a big problem.

When we look at what we are doing about that, one wonders whether our response to that problem is strong enough. At the moment we are talking about making some changes to the Child Support Agency. They are long overdue for those who have been dealing with that particular bureaucracy for a long time. But, again, in a sense they are not the solution to the problem. The Child Support Agency's problems are a product of the high divorce rate in Australia. Even with the wisdom of Solomon, it has become evident to those who have confronted this problem over the years that it is almost insoluble. Ironically, it was Solomon who demonstrated his wisdom, as I recall the story, in the first place by dealing with a custody problem—and his solution was to cut the child in half. Of course, that in a sense solved the problem. I will not go into the story because there is probably not the time here this morning for bible stories. But it is instructive.

We have a problem with divorce, which then leads to our problem with the Child Support Agency bureaucracy. If we did not have the huge divorce problem then we would not have as many problems as we have in picking up the pieces. The problems associated with the level of divorce in Australia can be solved, and that is where our emphasis ought to be. I am not going to speak at great length about that today. It is something I have spoken about quite a bit in the past, but we have to look at the law.

As I said earlier, since the no-fault divorce law was introduced in 1976, we have had this huge escalation, this quadrupling, in the amount of divorce. I am not going to argue here, and nor have I argued in the past, that we wind back the clock to pre-1976, but we have to recognise that since 1976 we have got this problem. We are dealing with that particular fact.

It has occurred largely because we have made divorce too easy. I recall Archbishop Hollingworth in Brisbane being asked once what he would do about the problem, and his response, when he thought about it for a moment, was very good. He said that he would make marriage more difficult to get into and more difficult to get out of. That is part of the solution to divorce.

Lest colleagues opposite, or even on my side, start getting excited, as some of them do, and particularly some of our female colleagues who are of that bent, and say, `What you want to do is get more women chained to the kitchen sink and be subservient to their husbands', and all that sort of garbage that we hear trotted out when you make these sorts of suggestions, the fact is that it is too easy for people in the current situation to simply walk away from a contract that is entered into solemnly.

No other contracts can be walked away from so easily. We enter into commercial contracts that have sanctions attached, and important as they might be, they are not as important as a life contract that involves the care and nurture of children, in most cases. Despite that, people can suddenly decide today, `I'm tired of this relationship; I want to find the new me; I want to experience new horizons', and so out the door they go. The CSA is knocking on the door the next day and, of course, it is all downhill from there.

There is a connection between high divorce rates, as Professor Baume points out, and the high rate of youth suicide. When we understand that fact and look at all the counselling services, all the millions of dollars that we are expending on worthwhile things, as they might appear to be, we will come to understand that money will not solve the problem.

We need to get to the core of the problem in our country and realise that marriage as an institution needs to be revitalised and that we need to re-establish the importance of it as a fundamental relationship. We need to stress the importance of families, which is something I speak about in this place quite often, as the fundamental unit in our society. We need to start supporting marriage and placing value on it and making it more difficult for people to walk away from without sanction.

That is the underlying thing. You talk about a contract. This is a relationship you can walk away from without any sanctions. It is not a question of who has caused the problem. I am not arguing that we go back to the days before no-fault divorce law, but I am talking about people accepting responsibility for their actions. In this particular case there is no responsibility accepted for people's actions. There can be a lot done to reduce the rate of divorce in this country.

It is often observed that we also make it very easy for people to get married. I suppose the law reinforces the view that `We will give it a go. If it does not work, then under the law we can just walk away,' which is no way to enter into such a solemn and important and fundamental contract.

That is why there is the need to make sure people understand, through the benefit of pre-marital counselling and other such opportunities, the importance of what they are doing. I will make a point that I have made before: just look at how much money we spend picking up the pieces after divorce. We spend billions of dollars, one way or another, picking up the pieces after a divorce, whereas we spend so little at the front end, on educating people to understand what the nature of marriage is and providing them with ongoing help and counselling.

Let us get serious about fixing divorce and then we will be addressing one of the fundamental causes of youth suicide. There is no doubt that children suffer from divorce. The trendy view in recent years has been that a good divorce is better than a bad marriage, that kids are okay and that it is a bit like influenza: they will cough and splutter for a few days and then get on with their lives. But the fact is that they do not. Kids suffer from divorce. They suffer not just for a short period of time: the evidence I have seen indicates that they suffer for the rest of their lives. Their children are also likely to suffer because of the impact the divorce has had on their parents. It goes through a number of generations. Kids are hurt by divorce, and ultimately that is what will lead, in some cases, to kids becoming so desperate that they will want to end their agony by unfortunately taking their own lives.

I thought this particular report was useful because it reinforces our understanding of the connection between divorce and youth suicide. I want to make a plea for us to get serious about fixing up the fundamental problem rather than thinking that we should spend more money on all of these other things. As worth while as they may appear to be, they will not solve the problem. It is interesting that we are very keen to stop people smoking because we realise smoking is a health hazard. I make the point very clearly that divorce is a health hazard for our kids. It also makes life harsher for our kids. Kids these days, I think, have a much harsher childhood than perhaps kids of my generation did.

Our parents, as I recall, looking back at my own childhood, may not have got on terribly well the whole time but, in the end, they were very good parents and they stayed together till death parted them. I think we have benefited enormously from that. Kids today, faced with divorce rates of the magnitude that we are talking about, are faced with a very much harsher and more difficult childhood, and that, as we recognise, may lead to an increase in the rate of youth suicide.

I recently read a book by David Blankenhorn, who visited Australia recently, called Fatherless America. While Mr Blankenhorn was here he did a number of interviews during which he talked about America and the importance of fathers to young men. Of course, divorce very often separates boys from their fathers, and we understand the reason for that happening. Mr Blankenhorn said that over 40 per cent of America's children do not live with their fathers, and I suspect that those sorts of percentages are almost being reached in Australia. Before they reach the age of 18, more than half of our nation's children will spend at least some of their childhood growing up without a father in their home. Nearly half of all children living apart from their fathers have not seen them in the previous year. More than 30 per cent of all children today are born to unmarried women. (Time expired)