Mr QUICK (10:48 AM) —Today I wish to raise an issue which I am sure many in this chamber are familiar with. It centres on that hoary issue of the effectiveness of the Child Support Agency and its ability to be able to exact justice for the clients it is supposed to serve. I would be the first to agree that the current system is far in advance of what was in place before, but the trouble with introducing a new system of payment is that you increase people's expectations. If there is a failure to meet this, you have a huge number of angry and frustrated people. Whom do they blame? Politicians, of course!

Try and get some justice for these people and you have to wend your way through the most complicated system yet created. If you are an aggrieved client trying to make sense of the system, hoping to have the bureaucracy see your point of view and perhaps unravel the mess, you have to be joking. With so many Australian marriages faltering and partners choosing to leave, with so many endeavouring to enter new relationships with all the associated hassles that often brings, of course you are going to see people under pressure.

The people and the family that I want to allude to today are those in a happy, but strained, second marriage: happy because they have a solid and lasting new relationship; strained because one partner comes with the baggage from the Child Support Agency. The husband is doing the right thing by his children and paying his ex-wife the maintenance due to her. This baggage is solely centred on the non-payment of money by the ex-husband of the wife and the inability of the wife to be able to exact her rights under law. The ex-husband's failure to comply with his obligation as set down under the Child Support Agency rules and regulations means that he owes his former partner in excess of $16,000. This fact has placed enormous stress and strain on this new relationship.

The couple called me and asked me to come over to their place so that they could explain the details. The couple have sat down and worked it all out. Currently they are renting privately and have all the usual debts associated with living in modern Australia. They, like many other couples, would like to take advantage of the low interest rates and the low cost of housing in Tasmania, so that they can purchase their own home. This is not possible, because the additional money due to the wife is not coming in to give them this choice. What are their options? Having done their sums, they now realise that, if the husband opts out of full-time employment, he and his new family are $64 per month better off and have the advantage of being able to access the health care card benefits.

What sort of society is this that we are fostering? What sort of message does it send out to our young children? The thing that frustrates me more than anything else is: what can I can do, as a politician, to assist the husband to stay in full-time employment? Why can't the Child Support Agency exert the necessary pressure on the ex-husband to have him pay what he owes, so that everyone in this case can live as they should? I would honestly appreciate it if the minister responsible for this agency would give me the right words to say to this family in real trouble. As I said at the outset, this is one of many such families right throughout my electorate and right throughout Australia.

If we institute a system, it must work. I know there are complications and I know it is easy for ex-husbands and ex-wives to go on the dole and not to pay their obligations, but it causes enormous pressure. This family, who are doing the right thing, trying to get ahead, trying to give their children all the opportunities available to them in Australia, are in the situation where there is enormous strain on the family. That the only way out is for the husband to give up a good, well-paid job and go on the dole is absolutely appalling.