SOUTH AUSTRALIAN BRANCH OF THE LONE FATHERS ASSOCIATION Inc. "Children need their Father as much as their Mother" LFAA National Peak Body

Visit FamilyAdvantage - NEW Child Support System

Policy Advice to Governments

Earlier conferences    parents' groups   help   crisis    change   Custody    Child support    Problems    developments

Lone Fathers Association (Australia) Inc.

Address by Barry Williams, LFA President

National Family Law Conference, 18-19 September 1999

Senator Newman, other distinguished guests, National Committee, Branch Presidents, members, ladies, and gentlemen, I welcome you to the Lone Fathers' Association Australia (Inc.)'s 1999 National Family Law Conference.

This Conference will be yet another major conference hosted by the LFA on this vitally important subject. I hope it will be as positive and constructive as all our previous ones.

Back to Links   

Earlier conferences

In 1990, the LFA hosted the largest conference on lone parents' issues that had ever been held in this country. There were 93 delegates, and a large number of other interested parties. Out of that conference came over 80 resolutions for change. The conference was successful in bringing about a full Parliamentary inquiry into the Family Law Act, after I (as LFA National President), Senator David Brownhill, and 3,000 other signatories called for such an inquiry.

The Parliamentary inquiry saw thousands of submissions for change, and triggered a further inquiry into the Child Support Scheme. The inquiry into the Child Support Scheme resulted in over 6,000 submissions, the largest number ever in a Parliamentary inquiry in Australia up to that time. But, unfortunately, the Government of the day failed to implement most of the findings.

Back to Links   

The LFA and other parents' groups

 Arising out of the 1990 conference and the subsequent Parliamentary inquiries, many parents' groups were established. Some of those groups have survived, although some folded due to financial pressure and sheer frustration. The LFA has withstood the pressure and frustration, and now, 27 years after the Association began, we are hosting the present national conference in the hope that further changes to the family law system can be made for the better.

The LFA has survived and continued to grow, partly because we have a strong organisational structure which cannot easily be pulled apart. We have local branches, and the branches are equal. Also, we stick to our aims, objects, and policies, and achieve results. Our advice and help, to both men and women, cannot easily be matched, because we have been down the same track as the people we help, and can understand their problems.

Back to Links    

 Requests for help from the LFA

 The never-ending requests to the LFA for help from all around Australia have continued during 1998-99 at a rapid rate, with figures in all categories increasing. During the year, the LFA attended to over 20,000 calls for help, up by a big margin on the 1997-98 figure, which amounted to about 16,000 calls. Over 1,600 letters were received, and I personally gave over 280 individual counselling sessions.

For the calls, recalls, and other contacts that I personally logged during 1998-99, plus some handled in the branches, the topics dealt with were:

·        denial of access 12,033 cases

·        custody matters 3,506 cases

·        child support 13,119 cases

·        property 2,606 cases

·        accommodation 461 cases

·        domestic violence 9,065 cases

·        attempted or contemplated suicide 315 cases

Most telling of all, unfortunately, were the number of suicide cases, up substantially from 1997-98.

Back to Links   

The need for change to family law

Relationship breakdown and its consequences are now a very major issue indeed in Australian society. Given that approximately 45% of all marriages in Australia are breaking down, it is unacceptable if governments do not put more effort into implementing or supporting programs that relieve families of the stress and anxiety involved.

In my years in the LFA, I have, like many others, become aware of many disasters that should never have occurred, and many suicides that could have been avoided. I myself have been to hell and back on at least three separate occasions. However, at least I made it back. Many of those other people didn't make it. I often sit and think, those unfortunate people had it a lot worse than me, and there is a long way to go before the administration of family law in this country will be generally acceptable.

Hopefully, the present conference will open the door to many of the changes that need to occur, and those here today will play a major role in that.

Back to Links   

Is there a crisis?

It is frequently claimed, nowadays, that men in this country are "in crisis". However, it is not, I believe, men, in general, who are in crisis. It is the family law system that is in crisis. Reform the family law system, and the "crisis" faced by men (and their children) will cease to be the snowballing issue it currently is.

Our family law system did not appear from nowhere. It was put there by Parliamentarians acting on behalf of the rest of us. They do not appear to have done a very good job. Governments have compounded legislative errors by appointing some judges who appear to be out of touch with the realities of a rapidly changing world.

The family system we have at present in Australia is unbalanced. In a world in which women, perfectly reasonably, are demanding equality of opportunity in the workplace, men are in many cases not permitted equality of opportunity in the home and the family.

The situation has arisen partly as a result of activity by ideologically driven lobby groups, which have for many years applied pressure to politicians, judges, and magistrates to do what they want.

Men in this country have generally not been organised to defend their own interests and the interests of the children in their families in the context of a Family Court which has been described as "run by men who are anti-male." Men have been primarily concerned, rather, with bringing home the bacon for their families, and doing the other things required to carry on the business of the country for the benefit of their own families and others. For some of them, while they were out there in the community working their home bases were being trashed!

Back to Links   

Custody, access, and parenting plans

Most fathers involved in marriage/relationship breakdowns are keen to have custody of their children, or at least joint custody with the mother. And they are usually well able to handle those responsibilities. The system at present in operation discourages this result, much to both the regret of the fathers and the disadvantage of their children. The claim by the Family Court that 35% of cases determined by the Court result in custody going to the father really misses the point. The point is that the Court's claim only relates to the 5% or so of cases where the fathers' claims are so strong that they are prepared to take on the court system. Even then, the men in question only have a one-third chance of succeeding.

The Commonwealth Government operates a very sizeable bureaucracy, working hand in glove with the courts and the police, to ensure that the provisions of the Child Support Scheme (no matter how draconian) are rigorously enforced. About 90% of the (adult) losers under this system are men. However, there is no corresponding system for enforcing compliance with court orders for access by NCP's to their children. There is no bureaucracy to provide the resources necessary to implement policy. There is apparently little interest by the Family Court in enforcing its own orders. And there is little possibility of the police doing anything effective in this area. About 90% of the (adult) losers from this failure on the part of government to take effective action to enforce the law, again, are men.

The very large imbalance in the present system between (1) the rigid enforcement of draconian child support assessments and (2) the failure by the Family Court to enforce its own orders for access cannot be allowed to continue for much longer.

If failure to comply with a court order in relation to a DVO is to be regarded as a criminal offence, and the defaulting party subject to arrest, as governments of whatever persuasion seem determined to do, the same approach should in future be applicable also to wilful failure to comply with court orders on access. The sanction of arrest and detention of a defaulting parent over a weekend (or, if necessary, longer period) should be contemplated. This will be almost certain to result in an immediate and dramatic improvement in the rate of compliance with court orders in this area. The reasons given by the courts for not wanting to act against custodial parents in those situations are unsustainable.

Recent initiatives at the governmental level in setting up small local experiments to test methods for improving access are far below what is needed. Lone fathers are not very impressed by this type of tokenism. Governments and the court system must bear a large part of the responsibility for the consequences of failure to act effectively in this area.

Back to Links   

Child support

The fundamental problem with the Child Support Scheme, as currently structured, is that the child support percentages levied on gross income, at least in some income ranges, result in oppressively high percentages in net terms.

To be fair to all members of broken families, and to do away with the present strong incentive for non-custodial parents to give up their jobs (thereby greatly reducing the amount of support for their children), and/or to falsify their incomes, the percentage rates need to be reduced by about a third. If a flat rate is to be used, this must be applied to net income, not gross income. Alternatively, there should be a sliding/decreasing scale applying to gross income. Governments seem resolved to make all the changes to the Child Support Scheme that can be made except the one change which is essential and which, if made, would largely fix the problems with the Scheme.

Back to Links   

Problems with recently proposed developments

Some recently proposed legislative developments, if carried into effect, could be counter-productive, for example:

·        a proposal that the starting point for property settlements should be the assumption that both parties have contributed equally to the marriage - when there may be no legitimate basis for such a presumption;

·        the proposed Commonwealth-State model for domestic violence legislation, which is riddled with problems, and seems to have been largely put together by people with misandrist objectives; and

·        a proposal to compensate spouses for alleged domestic violence in property settlements.

The report by the Commonwealth/State Committee on Domestic Violence is a poor guide to policy.

Also, existing legislation needs to be changed to adequately deal with the many cases, under current conditions, where DVO applications are not made bona fide, but rather to gain a strategic advantage against an unsuspecting partner. There must be significant penalties in these cases, and these penalties must be enforced. Legislation also needs to be changed to adequately deal with the many cases, under current conditions, where allegations of child abuse are not bona fide.

There are so many doubtful features either currently in family law, or proposed to be added to it, that it would be highly desirable for a further major review to be carried out in the near future of all aspects of family law. Given the failures of the past, this, we suggest, should be carried out by an eminent and sensible person/group of persons who are not lawyers and not Members of Parliament.

Back to Links   

Recent encouraging developments

In spite of the above, there have been some encouraging developments in recent times, for example, proposals from the Government for:

·        pre-nuptial agreements; and

·        splitting of superannuation entitlements between spouses.

However, the distinction made, in the Government's recent discussion paper on Property and Family Law, between "two main options for reform" has confused the issue. The distinction made between a "separate property regime" and a "community of property regime" is not the point, because the two approaches can quite easily be made equivalent in practice. Whichever philosophical option is applied, the main issue remains whether the Court can manage to be unbiased in making its decisions.

I should finish this preliminary foray into the issues by referring to a major new development in the ACT, namely the establishment of a Men’s' Accommodation and Crisis Service in Canberra (known as MAACS), being run by the LFA ACT.

We are very appreciative of the ACT government's help with MAACS, which opened on 14 April 1999, the first of its kind in Australia. Already it has proved successful. The service has been in use at almost all times, and we have had to turn a number of people away because they did not meet our criteria, e.g. because they were not victims of marriage breakdown or had not been residents of the ACT.

Each person who comes into MAACS is helped with his immediate problems, which in many cases are complex, combining financial, legal, and emotional aspects. At the same time we encourage these people to help themselves. We have learnt over the years that if you do everything for people in these situations they will not help themselves. Rather, you must encourage them to take hold of their situation and work on it in a positive way to solve it themselves. This also helps them to get their self esteem back.

We have had a number of clients with young children, and the children that have come to MAACS have all been great kids and well mannered.

I believe that both the LFA and the ACT Government can hold their heads high for their achievement in establishing MAACS.

I hope that this National Conference will encourage the speedy uptake of the MAACS concept also in other States.

18 September 1999