Men's Rights Agency ~ Child Support
Cabinet "Rolls" CSA Sub-Committee
D - day for the Partyroom meeting between the Cabinet and the CSA Sub-committee was today.
Reports emanating from Parliament House suggest the meeting was heated and when an incorrect count of votes to accept the Cabinet recommendations (as per our listing) took place, Paul Marek challenged the numbers. A recount voted 11 to 8 against accepting the limited recommended changes to the CSA legislation and formula.
Cabinet overrode the Sub-Committee and decided the recommendations as originally stated would be put to Parliament for a vote.
Do not expect any more changes until Budget-time - May 1988 - the time nominated by the Prime Minister to look again at CSA changes.
The changes are too little and too late. It is doubtful whether they will produce any significant relief for paying parents. Certainly the unemployed will not benefit - they will have to pay $5 per week towards child support and those who have existing negative gearing structures will find this will be added back into the child support income base.
Initial reports indicated some non-custodial parents would be about $17 per week better off. Not much when one knows many parents who are trying to EXIST on as little as $30 - $40 per week.
We fear the CSA changes have fallen foul of the Government's delicate position in relation to the current travel rorts crisis. Reluctance to upset the vocal feminists, including those in Government appears to have dramatically affected the original bravado that we were led to expect from Cabinet.
Word had it that the proposed changes would be kept secret for fear of a backlash and the Prime Minister would announce (Wik style) a series of points for change as a fait a complis.
What do you want to do about this? Can we suggest you immediately contact your local MP and contact any others from the lists accessed via this site.
1997 © Copyright Australian Men's Rights Asscoation Pty Ltd
Viewers are welcome to use the information on these pages, but should acknowledge their source as being Men's Rights Agency Internet Site. Visitors to this site should also be aware that views expressed in the articles are not necessarily the views of Australian Men's Rights Asscoation