Senator MARGETTS (7:44 PM) —It is quite clear that the opposition have a good point here, especially in relation to the double standards—and not only in recently introduced social security legislation. You only have to think back to the common youth allowance and what exactly was required immediately and on the spot of teenagers and parents of teenagers. When I spoke to a number of teenagers in Bunbury at a lunch facility for people who were not able to cope on their common youth allowance, I asked whether it was easier to get common youth allowance. No, they had the same amount of forms. What was different? They had to put in a lot more information. The forms were longer and more onerous. So, no, the minister has not got a concern in general, or the government does not seem to have a concern in general, about the information that is required. It depends who it is.

The minister has just recently said it is of potentially quite serious significance if non-custodial parents are secreting away income. I imagine it would quite distressing for a struggling custodial parent to be watching a non-custodial parent amassing interesting business expenses and minimising their official private income. It seems that the group that is being protected from providing so-called onerous information is the particular group in society that the coalition represents. That would appear to be the people on higher incomes, so there is a double standard here.

If we were talking about common youth allowance, no detail would be too much trouble for the government to require—no matter how difficult or how long the form. No information would be too onerous for the government to require in terms of people's weekly expenditure patterns—what did you spend on this day, that day, the next day and so on. It seems that no information would be too onerous to provide. However, when it comes to an issue of whether or not children are being adequately supported—potentially by parents who can afford to, but who are not giving that adequate support—the government seems to have a different attitude.

I would like to indicate that the Greens (WA) are supporting the opposition's amendment. In fact, we have similar but more specific amendments to their next amendments. I think the government is on the wrong track here. They seem to have a particular bias towards protecting a particular group of people or a particular type of income. We are not talking about fringe benefit tax generally for the people who do not have any money or who are on a low income. We are talking generally about those people who are on otherwise relatively high income who might better look after their children.