Mr WAKELIN(7.19 p.m.) —Tonight I want to speak in the House about the Family Law Act 1975 and its unfortunate consequences for my constituents, coupled with some impact of the child support scheme, In particular, I would refer to the Family Law Act 1975, part VIII, property, spousal maintenance and maintenance agreements.

When this act was introduced, there certainly was quite a different social structure in Australia. In part 75 of the act, the court is to take into account whether the parties have separated or the marriage has been dissolved and whether the standard of living in all the circumstances is reasonable; the extent to which the party whose maintenance is under consideration has contributed to the income, earning capacity, property and financial resources of the other party; if either party is cohabiting with another person, the financial circumstances relating to the cohabitation; any child support under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, et cetera.

This has impacted particularly on one individual in my electorate. Over the last 22 years, when we consider the very much evolving independence of women, very much an insistence on gender equality, many of these guidelines are seen to be archaic. I was a strong supporter not long ago of changes to the widow allowance, particularly for older women who were, if you like, in transition with the change of structure in their social approach.

What has happened in this particular instance is that this fellow has divorced, he is paying child support, and now he finds that he is having to pay spousal maintenance. He is not able to begin another relationship. He has lost what was a very fine home. I do not think, from recollection, he is even able to rent; I think he has to board. He is quite a senior manager. The impact of these factors is quite profound. This spousal maintenance does not require his ex-partner to even so much as, to my understanding, look for work or attempt to retrain and become more inde

pendent. That seems to me to be something which, in all the circumstances, is grossly unfair.

Moving on to just have a look at the impact of the child support scheme on this same individual, he makes the point to me that there is difficulty with assessment of costs of children in Australia. There is the basket of goods approach, and there is the expenditure survey approach. Let us just look at the variation.

Let me take as an example a two-year-old. If we use the expenditure survey approach, it is $163 a week. If we use the basket of goods approach, for low income it is about $80 and for medium income it is about $131. When we take into account the formula for the child support scheme, we can see there is a huge variation. Another thing to take into account is the insistence on making calculations on gross income. It should be remembered that if you underestimate you pay a penalty and that if you overestimate you pay a higher amount—and there is no recognition of that. I think one can see the impact this is having on my constituent. He makes the point: `Why can't we simply have a PAYE fortnightly calculation?'

I raise that because I think in the last 25 years we have seen great change. I think it is time that we acknowledge that. In our current situation there must be an opportunity for people to have a new beginning. As the member for Chifley (Mr Price) has acknowledged, too often we are dealing with the corpses of dead relationships. I believe that is something which this government and this parliament must address. The formula, coupled with other issues of family law, should be attended to. (Time expired)

Question resolved in the negative.

Sitting suspended from 7.24 p.m. to 10 a.m. (Friday)