Sylvia, I concede that the tax payer should foot the bill for child support payments, given the current anti-Father Family Court regime. But not because of the reasons that you present. I concede because it will cost the taxpayer almost one third less to simply pay the custodial parent directly out of government funds - that is until shared parenting becomes the norm.

The PIR Independent Research Group report "Child Support the Financial Cost to the Taxpayer" (September 2004) confirms that the CSA is a financial failure - "a costly endeavor with no tangible benefits for children or their parents".

Children of separated parents now receive less per child than prior to the creation of the $240 million a year CSA bureaucracy with its 3,000 staff.

For every dollar the CSA collects it costs $5.58 in administration costs, welfare and lost taxation revenue.

The cost of the scheme in administration, increased welfare and lost productivity was estimated at $5,000 million for 2002/03.

The number of payers earning less than half the national average wage is 45%.

70% of all the unemployed males in Australia over the age of 20 are child support payers.

At least 39% of CSA payers are either unemployed, sporadically employed or on disability pensions.

An estimated 80% of payees are reliant on social welfare.

I find that your article reveals great insight into men's issues. I just don't think more money will fix a broken system. Better to address the causes.

Has anyone considered consulting men!

Hear! hear!

sylvia ,a trend that concerns and puzzles me is why women now initiate divorce on a 4 to 1 basis compared to men . and how can women talk about "lack of comittment" to marriage by potential male partners, with their lack of "commitment" that makes itself apparent a few years on into their marriage, or are they in it just for the kids and or the money ? please explain ??

sorry for the cynicsm .

OK men, straw poll.

1. Of those of you who are fathers do you regret it?

2. If you aren't a father why not?

PS: Boaz what makes you think I am no longer affiliated with a university?

"but they (extremist feminists) tend to be elitist and fill positions in Universities, and try to INfluence many, and public policy as well. You don't see them, but they are there. They are probably one of the most destructive forces in our community, but the damage won't be seen for some time yet."

If you believe that then I know a really nice rock in the middle of Australia you could be interested in purchasing.

Seriously though, Boaz I am far more afraid of male leaders like Bush than I am about a few mad feminists. And also... a good friend of mine was stalked by a couple of men in black shirts, she was so frightened she took her children and moved interstate. I am missing my friend and angry at these bitter men.

Ringtrail
The men address the pervasive political and economic issues.
The women deflect.

The community comes out in hoards when a whale is beached, but over 5 men commit suicide a day and its 'ho-hum'.

Lets ask again "Is being a father worth the risk?"

In 2003 Larry Anthony ordered an inquiry into the CSA cover-up of suicide figures. For years concerned groups have demanded that the CSA release figures on their clients who have committed suicide – estimated 3 a day. The CSA continues to use the defence that they do not collect such figures. This is hardly adequate exercise of their duty of care! Is there any other government body that has been accused of having so many client deaths and has refused to collate the true figures?"

Trevor Sutton, Assistant General Manager of the CSA repeats the rhetoric that "there is no reputable data that proves the proposition that child support is a contributing factor in suicide amongst men". Of-course, while the CSA refuses to investigate their own records, the opportunity to attain 'reputable' data will never come.

In fact, there IS research (1999 Central Coast Health Promotion Unit) that factored the CSA very clearly as an organisation that is detrimental to men in crisis. Expert opinion also links 3 of the 5 daily male suicides to family separation (1998 Baume and others)

- at least 70% suicides are associated with relationship break-ups
- men were 9 times more likely to suicides following break-up than women.

After years of lobbying, the government recently assigned 42 Million dollars to a National Suicide Prevention Strategy. A large portion of this went to the CSA, as Trevor Sutton informs me … to identify and support clients at risk of self harm. Doesn't this acknowledge that there IS a suicide issue amongst CSA clients!

This face saving exercise will cost Australia many lives, for the same organisation awarded precious suicide prevention funding shows no commitment to investigate its own client suicide numbers.

Is it any wonder that we are loath to assign more funds to such a failed and oppressive system!

Kartiya

You ask about the issue of commitment, and comment about the 4 to 1 rate of wife initiated divorces. I haven't checked the statistics, so I'll accept what you say.

I think the tendency to blame, or make accusations of hypocrisy, comes form the belief that people have free will when it comes to making their decisions. I really think a lot of the free will is an illusion. People tend not to realise how their decisions are constrained by matters completely outside their control.

To give a simple example, I don't eat mangos. Is this a decision I've made in complete freedom? Well, no, not really. The truth is I don't like mangos. There's something about their tast that I find objectionable. Other people do like mangos, and eat them.

So how much freedom do I really have here? I could force myself to eat a mango, but I'm not going to do while I don't like them. Can I make myself like them? I don't see how.

It's the same with relationships. One can make conscious decisions, but only within the framework set up by mechanisms occuring below the conscious level, over which we have no control. If one meets someone, one will not fall deeply in love with them unless one finds them attractive. That's not a choice. Marriage may follow, but after children arrive, the love may disappear. Then the partner's other characteristics that got overlooked become annoying. The relationship becomes unbearable.

I think evolution has dealt us a poor deck. Fixing it would involve tampering with our gene pool (even assuming we knew how to). Would you adjust the genes of your children to assure them happy marriages?

Sylvia.