Senator NEWMAN (Family and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women) (1:15 PM) —I thank senators for their contributions, particularly Senator Woodley and Senator Evans, who clearly understand the need for improving a system of support for Australia's children that was introduced originally by the Labor government, with the support of the then coalition opposition, and that has obviously been in need of some repairs, maintenance and improvement. All of us, as members of parliament, would well understand that. I am disappointed that Senator Margetts has chosen to take the tack she has in this debate because, by her attempts to delay the passage of this legislation, she is really saying that it is okay to play games with children's lives.

This legislation has been needed now for at least four years. In November 1994 many of the recommendations which are in this legislation were made by the joint select committee of the parliament. In March 1995 the previous government tabled an interim response to 53 of the recommendations, but no action was taken at that time. The incoming coalition government announced reforms to the scheme in September 1997 and we tabled a response to the joint select committee's report in November-December 1997. The legislation we are dealing with now was introduced into the House of Representatives in March this year. Further government reforms were announced in May this year and the legislation passed through the House of Representatives in May this year. The bill only lapsed because the election was called in August, before the Senate had a chance to debate the legislation.

It was the government's intention that these families—particularly, these children—would have had, at last, the entitlements that that joint select committee of the parliament recommended back in 1994. But, by your thoughtless amendment, Senator Margetts, you would delay any action on this until after the middle of the year 2000. It is a nonsense to do that to families who are crying out for reform of child support. I cannot understand how you can possibly even consider putting your name to such an amendment.

Most of the amendments to the existing scheme have been welcomed by both the Democrats and the opposition. As Senator Woodley said, most of the people who make contact with those of us in parliament are people who have been through the wringer of a family break up. They have had contact with the Family Court. They know about the ongoing difficulties associated with rearranging their lives and the hurt that comes from seeing loved children almost split in two because of the inability of parents to live together and continue to love each other.

When this government looked at trying to do something about child support in Australia we were very concerned to produce a package which built very closely on the recommendations of the joint select committee. We wanted a package that was balanced, fairer and more equitable than what the joint select committee, and many other Australians, considered had been the outcome of the original package of child support measures.

Senator Woodley made a very important point about how thin on the ground we are in respect of pre-marriage education and pre-marriage preparation. It is something which this government is very concerned to address. Our commitment to this is symbolised by the new portfolio we created, for which I am the senior minister—the ministry of Family and Community Services.

There have been small programs—such as adolescent mediation, parenting skills and pre-marriage preparation—in several different portfolios at the federal level. Of course, a lot of these services are provided at state and community sector levels. But, really, as Senator Woodley was saying, if Australia is going to be serious about making sure children do not end up in these circumstances, we need to make sure that marriages are stronger from the beginning and are supported as they go along, that people do not have children unless they are really wanted and that parents know how to look after children, cherish them and give them the love that they badly need. A civilised society can do no better than make sure that children born to Australian families grow up with two loving parents.

Senator Evans was quite right in saying that the objectives of the child support legislation tend to get lost. He went through them carefully, so I will not repeat them now. He questioned also what he called the break in the link with the tax office. In answer to Senator Evans, it would be true to say that the government will not be wanting to do anything which would diminish the effectiveness of the Child Support Agency. The link with the tax office is very much in our minds in determining exactly how its arrangements will be carried out into the future.

Senator Evans also said that we should go further with income minimisation, and I agree with that very strongly. That is why I was so very pleased when the government announced, before the election, that an important element of our tax reform will be that fringe benefits will have to be shown on tax certificates. That was important to me in a variety of areas in my portfolio when I was the minister responsible for social security. I also had, at that time, the policy responsibility for child support. I could see that this was a way of dealing with what had been quite a difficult issue for the agency and for parents, in that either member of a former couple can salary package these days. The growing practice in the private and the public sector of people salary packaging has all sorts of implications for taxpayer funded benefits of one kind or another and, of course, for assessment of child support liability.

So, I agree with Senator Evans that we should go further with income minimisation measures in as far as they affect child support, but, of course, they are coming. They will be part of the tax reform legislation. In the format that the government is proposing to have those group certificates it will make it very much less troublesome for the parents to be able to document their total income package for the benefit of the Child Support Agency.

There is no great need to deal any more with what Senator Margetts has said, except for this: she threw a quote from the Sydney Morning Herald across the chamber, to which I took exception. My recollection is that the article she was probably quoting from was one in which I had been talking to the journalist about issues to do with women who are lone parents. I pointed out to the journalist that women in our society generally tend to have lower incomes than men—the gap is narrowing but that is still the fact—and that lone parents are frequently poor—a point that Senator Margetts has been making in her own contribution. I was pointing out not that that is a desirable outcome but that it is a fact. That was by way of answer to a very highly paid journalist to remind her that people in her situation are atypical. I would be very grateful, Senator, if when you next look at that Sydney Morning Herald article you look at it in that context because I assure you that that was the context in which the interview took place.

There was a flurry of articles at about that time by two or three highly paid female journalists who are not at all in the same position as most of the lone parents who are getting support and who will continue to get support, many of them for the first time, under this amending bill.

You referred to people on social security benefits having to pay $5 a week towards the support of their own children and that that was somehow saying that, in the government's mind, pensions and benefits are $5 more than they need to be. That is a lot of twaddle and you know it. In Australia today, 150,000 parents are getting no child support because the other parent is on some form of pension or benefit. I do not believe that Australians would regard the priority of $5 a week towards the support of a child that you helped bring into this world—

Senator Margetts —Get real!

Senator NEWMAN —I am the one who is real, Senator; you are the one who is lost in fairyland. Five dollars a week. What is the price of a packet of fags, Senator? Do you know that?

Senator Margetts —I don't smoke.

Senator NEWMAN —Nor do I, but I know that it is more than $5 a week to keep your child. I say to every parent in Australia: whatever your financial position your first responsibility, your first priority, must be to contribute to the cost of rearing the children you helped bring into the world. Senator Margetts, you are alone in this chamber, thank goodness, with your view on that. Most senators would regard that as being a fair and reasonable thing to do.

One hundred and fifty thousand people will be paying $5 a week in future that they have not been paying before. It is sick that you would suggest that that was not something which should be at the head of any parent's list of priorities. I am amazed that you would suggest otherwise. I am also amazed that you would think it is reasonable to defer consideration of this legislation, as you have proposed in your second reading amendment.

Amendment not agreed to.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that consideration of this bill in committee of the whole be made an order of the day for a later hour of the day.