BY MARGARET ALLUM
"Financial living standards after divorce", a report based on research by the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS), shows that the financial situations of women and men after a relationship breakdown remain consistent with a decade ago.
Researchers Ruth Weston and Bruce Smyth argue that women are more likely than men to experience financial hardship after divorce and that for many divorced women, forming a new relationship remains a key way out of financial difficulties.
They found that sole mothers and older women living alone are the most likely to be financially disadvantaged, while the most advantaged are "re-partnered" men without children in their households. Sole fathers are the most disadvantaged group of men, their financial situation being similar to that of sole mothers.
Another recently released AIFS study, "The division of matrimonial property in Australia", part of the Australian Divorce Transitions Project, found that women who had taken primary responsibility for children and housework received, after divorce, a share of property well below the mean for all women. "Property continues to be divided in a way that reflects the continued undervaluing of women's non-financial contributions to the matrimonial property and the children's welfare and a tendency to under-acknowledge the long-term impact of the primary care giver and homemaker roles on future earning capacity", reported researchers Grania Sheehan and Jody Hughes.
In the light of these findings, the federal government's May 9 federal budget decision to cut child support payable by non-resident (formerly known as non-custodial) parents is further evidence that Howard and Co. have little concern for the welfare of sole parents or their children.
Women head 86% of sole-parent families and will be disproportionately affected by the cuts. Under the new measures, those who will have the biggest reductions in the amount of child support they must pay are the wealthiest non-custodial parents.
Adele Horin, writing in the May 11 Sydney Morning Herald, estimated that wealthy parents could pay up to $150 per week less for child support through a combination of different measures in the budget. While those on $100,000 or more are the biggest winners, non-custodial parents who care for a child for as few as 36 nights a year will be able to cut their child support payments.
Barry Williams, national president of the anti-feminist Lone Fathers Association (Williams drafted the family policy for Pauline Hanson's One Nation), was reported in the SMH as being "amazed" that most of the demands he made had been granted in the budget. Williams met with Prime Minister John Howard and minister for family and community services Jocelyn Newman five weeks before the budget presentation.
Bettina Arndt, in the May 18 SMH, wrote that the "dire financial circumstances of many non-resident parents, which contributes to the difficulties they have maintaining contact with their children after divorce" are "well known". She says that the government has decided to foot the bill to "help these dads stay connected with their children".
The Child Support Agency says that cuts to child support payable by parents who see their children is intended to encourage parents to maintain contact with them following separation. It recognises the additional costs faced by child support payers who exercise contact with their children, the agency claims.
But it is not poor fathers who are getting the biggest breaks with this deal, it is the wealthiest. The new provisions give non-residential parents (most of whom are men) an estimated saving of $800 per year on a wage of $50,000, increasing to $1000 for those earning $60,000. Around 4000 wealthy non-residential parents will have their income over $78,378 excluded from assessment for child support.
This, and the new payment formula, could deliver the $150 a week in savings according to Sole Parents Union president Kathleen Swinbourne. This money was being taken away from the children, she said.
Mandy Dunn, secretary of the Sole Parents Union, told Green Left Weekly that the Department of Family and Community Services and the Child Support Agency have admitted that no analysis or financial modelling had been carried out before the measures were announced. She said that the new provisions would most likely result in an average across the board of $5 a week less being paid for child support. The biggest gains would be for the wealthiest non-residential parents.
Dunn labelled the Coalition's changes as "ill conceived policy, with a lack of consultation". She criticised the federal government's approach to single parents, which was to deal with them as isolated individuals through agencies such as Centrelink. The government should be funding family support services and peer support programs for sole parents.
Government claims that the package will "improve the child support scheme in a balanced way, resulting in a fairer scheme" belies the reality of the financial situation of sole parents. The assertion that sole parents will benefit through "improved post-separation relationships resulting in improved relationships between paying parents and their children, leading to improved child support payment rates" are not believable.