Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for his answer. I take on board the fact that he has not made any promises but I do appreciate that he is taking the issue back to the portfolio minister. These are very sensitive issues. I appreciate the comments about cooperation; however, I am aware, both from my own life experience and from the experiences of a number of my constituents who have approached me, that the reality is that there are a number of parents who find it impossible to cooperate. In a perfect world, of course, we all would seek that. In a perfect world we would not be in a situation where parents are at loggerheads, but the fact is that in the real world that happens. In many cases they do not cooperate. In fact, the relationship can break down further when they are trying to sort out these issues.

Senator Abetz was talking about them still being a unit even if they are separated—that the separated parents plus the child are still a unit. The fact is that the separated parents do not see it that way. The separated parents see it as each parent now being a unit in themselves. So it is unrealistic, I think, to make the presumption therefore that they are like an expanded unit and that resources can be shared between the parents. The fact is that in many cases that cannot happen. We are talking here about parents who are on income support. They have very limited resources and access to resources. In those circumstances the taking away of a small amount of money can have significant consequences for that parent and the child or children involved.

I do appreciate the fact that you are now taking the issue back. I have also been raising these issues in Senate estimates. In fact we have had toing and froing on this on a number of occasions. I am glad now that the government will at least give it further consideration.

Question negatived.

The Greens oppose item 4 in schedule 1 in the following terms:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 22) to page 4 (line 11), TO BE OPPOSED.

I will not rehash the argument again. We went through that slightly earlier. I will just reiterate that, despite some of the answers that we were given, the Greens still have strong concerns about this provision.