My wife and I disagee with the current way that maintinace payment s are calculated and I wish to throw the idea out for debate.

My opinon is that every child should be paid maintinace at a pre-determined dollar value per child depending on their age not on their current lifestyle. Eg" $10 per week per child under school age increasing as they get older. I also believe that these payments should be deducted from your income or benifit payments not volentary as is the case now.

Whereas my wife believes that if a child is from a wealthy family then they should be kept wealthy i'e' more money per week than that of a child from a poorer family. Currently the system takes a percentage of your income for maintinace which increases or decreases depending on your earnings.

Please have your say.

Hi, rehctub, I see that this is your first post on OLO, welcome!
Unfortunately, I won’t be much help to you, I don’t know much about child support arrangements so I hope that the more informed people will see your post.

However, I don’t mind participating in the discussion (if there’s gonna be one) to learn more about the matter.
I’m hoping that one of OLO’s contributors, RObert, will notice this thread because he knows quite a lot about Child support (CS) and I know he has many objections to the system, which sounded reasonable to me.

So how exactly is CS or maintenance calculated at the moment?
If it’s calculated according to both the custodial and the non-custodial partners’ income, as a percentage, then this seems fair to me.

Perhaps there should be a cap on the amount? I haven’t made up my mind about that yet, but if it is capped, it should take into account the child’s previous living conditions and situation, I think.
To set a very low limit, say $10 as you suggest would put too much strain on the custodial parent. If the custodial parent would also pay only $10 towards feeding and clothing the kid, then it’ll have to live under poverty conditions.
One cannot properly feed and clothe a pre-schooler for $20 a week.
I believe that children should suffer as little as possible from a divorce and not to be expected to make too many lifestyle changes if that is not necessary.

How do you define ‘wealthy’? Wealth is relative, perhaps we need to define it, even roughly.

I am in the 'funny' position of being partnered to someone who is in the system where he is being hit up for Child Support. I feel the child living at the other house ought to be living comfortably if the non custodial parent has some income. However, I am seeing my partner doing better with his business SINCE the divorce and is now the other ex is asking for handouts. For me, that seems wrong and perhaps the 'cap' idea isn't a bad one. Instead, one has to have a good accountant that can help one hide taxable income so the nasty 'ex' doesn't get their hands on more and more. Of course, kids shouldn't be doing without at any point and doing without the time of one parent is bad and sad enough. But to have the parents arguing the money side, well you can't tell me that somehow that doesn't 'affect' the kids. They know and they learn. Surely more time should be put into making it a more fair system so the non custodial parent is having to 'hide income', drop income or leave the country in order so the other party isn't gaining from their otherwise success. At least my own income doesn't come into it as the partner; if it were to be I'd be spitting. Being so up close to all this, I can see why many males are wanting the system overhauled. It isn't fair on the dads.

Celivia, your wish is granted.

Firstly before discussing the levels of payment I'll use this post to point out that I think the whole concept is a significant contributer to ongoing conflict between parents and that we would be better off without it. The current system seems to let the schemers get away with paying very little anyway and creates a situation which maintains resentment between parents. Custodial parents (and I'm currently one) think that the other parent is not doing enough to help and non custodial parents feel ripped off.

I'd certainly ditch the whole thing where both parents are willing to have the care of the kids and an imbalance in care is the result of decisions by the parent with the bulk of care.

We should start any reform by looking at options which reduce the financial ties between seperated parents. Maybe put a pool in the middle, parents pay into it and parents are paid out of it but no direct link between payer and payee.

Whilst I see the argument about miminising the impact on kids I suspect that the stress caused by parents having ongoing tension over so called child support far outweighs an material loss.

If we really considered the maintenance of lifestyle as important as some treat it we would not allow parents in intact families to take a sea change, to downshift for the sake of their health or just because they could no longer maintain a particular lifestyle.

We need systems which protect the needs of children but not ones which keep their parents in conflict well past the point where they could otherwise have moved on.

R0bert

RObert,

I couldn't agree with you more about somehow getting the money tie broken. As the partner of one in the couple still 'going on' about child support, well it started in 2001. It is now 2007. The ties with the money make for an eternal tie; I am sick of seeing it 'distracting' from what really is important in the lives of the children. The one on one, the mutual parent love (though living apart), and the unity when it comes to the big decisions on the children's lives, whether it be which highschool and so on. One parent never feels the money is spent the way it ought. Is an excuse to go on 'hating', well it is for some. The money is an excuse to not do the parenting so well. At least that is what I witness.

The no fault divorce rule is a joke. Many men have committed suicide because they have been taken to the cleaners by a manipulative woman supported by the family court system. Often the word 'abuse' is used in order to prevent a father seeing a child. I have no doubt many men are and have been abusive but many also suffer severely and wrongly due to some devious women.

Rehctub Here.Well I am pleased to see there is some feedback from both sides of the fence so as to speak. I further wish to claify that the $10.00 I mentioned was merely a number, not an accurate amount. However I seriously doubt that a six month old baby costs the same per week to maintain as a 15 year old child. The system doesn't see it this way though as they continue to take a pecentage of the wage.
Lets say a couple seperate where the father is the bread winner and earns say 45,000 per year and there are three children under the age of 13. If he continues with his current job the current system takes about 30% or $13,500 of his gross wage. That's before taxes. If he increases his income to say $60,000 per year this then becomes $20,000 per year, however, if the mother meets a partner who happens to earn $120,000 per year, and it happens at times, the family all of a sudden enjoys a huge increase in their living standards. While I am the first to say this would be great for the kids, why then does the father have to continue to shell out 30% of his income. However, if the payments were a set amount then he would have the oppotunity to kick start his life again while the kids would continue to be supported knowing that that set amount is comming on a regular basis while at the same time enjoy the extras from the wealthy partner. It is quite simply impossible for a man, even if his partner has cheated on him and taken the kids as well, to start again as he is crippled by the current system that takes a percentage of his gross income. I just feel that the current system is unfair, causes people to either under declair their income, or in some cases cease work all together just to avoid the payments. And, while all of this is going on the innocent ones, the children are the ones that are missing out.

rehctub, no simple answers but men who want to avoid that fate need to stack the odds differently.

- Make sure that they share the care of the children from day one as much as humanely possible.
- Remember time with their kids is far more important than a plasma TV, bigger house, private school etc. Kids need quantity of time far more than they need things. If a custody battle happens working hard to provide for your kids does not ensure better access to them.
- Argue for provisions in workplace agreements/EBA's etc that don't discriminate according to gender. A couple should be able to decide according to their circumstances who stays at home and who continues a career (or both reduce work hours to share) not have it decided by gender.
- Oppose the stereotyping of males as abusers and poor parents.
- If a seperation happens continue to be the best parent they can be regardless of what the other parent does.

We still have a system that struggles with the idea of shared care or males as prime carers but it seems a lot better in some places than it was a few years ago. I've not had anything to do with Relationships Australia for a couple of uears but other services seem to have moved on a lot recently. (excluding C$A)

That does not solve all the problems but it's a start.

R0bert

Thanks for your comments rObert
In a perfect world I would suggest that your theory is all well and good but the reality is that very few relationships end up this way as most problems are created from outside influences, i.e, a sister from hell or a general man hater freind.

As for your comment on equality in the work place, well this is a brand new subject. There is quite simply no way that all workers can be treated equally unless they perform the same task and achieve the same output. Notwithstanding the fact that work place agreements have made some ground, the current pay system rewards workers for the time it takes them to perform a task rather than the productivity achieved by an individual. In many cases the work pace in a workplace is set by the slowest worker which does little to enspire good workers.

With further regard for the equality argument, take away the womens tees at the golf courses, make them play 5 sets of tennis instead of 3 and make the maximin lifting limit in the workplace the same as a male and we may make some progress. In the mean time we should reffer to a famous book that I relcall was something like, 'Women from Venus and Men are from Mars.
Cheers

rehctub, the equality part depends on how far you push it. We have EBA preperations under way now and the draft included gender specific provisions which are unnecessary so I've asked for a rewrite on those items. Nothing in the original or the revised versions about the output of individual workers etc.

My comments were about fathers making sure that they are actually in a position to be fathers. Whilst the idea that arrangements which worked when a couple were together are the bast when apart does not sit well fathers who accept/choose little involvement in their kids lives prior to seperation are not exactly on the high ground after seperation in regard to time with their kids.

Doing so will not necessarily make a difference when dealing with the family breakup industry but the times are changing.

R0bert

R0bert

As for differences in sport I have no problem with them but I don't feel compelled to get to bothered when I hear complaints that women

Ah RObert, you’re a true cyber genie!
You’ve made some really good points; so has Cakers.
I like your idea of a pool or similar financial arrangement.

On the ‘MD Law’ website it says,
“In practical terms, parents often make their own financial arrangements… It is very common for parties not to rely on the administrative assessment and to enter into a Child Support Agreement.”
http://www.mdlaw.com.au/family/fam_faq.html#finSupport

Doesn’t that mean that parents can lawfully make their own arrangements and only have to resort to the official assessment when they can’t agree? I realise that I sound ignorant but Child support sounds quite complicated to me.

RObert, good point also about the involvement/position of fathers; some things are still being thought of as ‘the mother’s job’, such as fighting for more child care at work places etc. When men and women cooperate, goals will be reached quicker.

Rehctub, RObert,
children who need to accept changes (e.g. sea or school change, dropping a hobby) when part of a stable, loving family, I imagine would cope better with those changes than children who are caught between fighting parents and have to deal with extra stress and need to adjust to constantly move back and fro between two parents’ homes as well. It’s a lot to cope with for young children.
So I do think that if it’s possible, parents should try to let them keep their music lessons or at school they love rather than taking this away from them, too.

As for equality, we can strive for as much fairness in the law, workplaces and sport as possible but sometimes there cannot be 100% equality solely because of biological or physical differences. It wouldn’t be wise for women to play rugby against men, for example.

Dear RObert
If you ask me the whole walfare system is full of faults. One thing I remember when I commenced my trade back in the late 70's was "son, if you work hard now you will benifit in the long run". Well how far from the truth is this now. You see the way the current system is, is that they reward the ones that don't contribute while at the same time penalise the ones that conribute the most. What I mean by this is that the harder you work the more tax you pay, the less benifits you receive to provide for your children and of cause you find yourself with less time to spend with your family. On the other hand if you choose not to work, or at least work as little as possible you get max benifits, max spare time, little need for travel expenses i.e.fuel and parking expenses associated with your work, while at the same time enjoying quailty time with your family. Of cause we all know that the majority of children caught up in these circumstances don't regard their time as 'quality time' due to the amount of welfare payments that are spent on alcohole and cigerets. I don't know about you but when I go to the chemist and they ask "do you have a healthcare card"? I simply say no, I am too busy at work to have one of those. It quite simply sucks! And just to add insult the government now pays them to have children knowing full well that the money does not go to the children. In my opinion every child should be supported regarless of their social status and zero dollars should go to the parents as it should be pooled and a card issued for child born expenses only.
I do have some positive ideas here but this is another topic.
Cheers
Rehctub

R0bert, you make a good point about parents who dont make a reasonable contribution to the tasks of raising children prior to seperation, then wanting equal access after seperation. I dont want to knock the thousands of fathers who do a great job - I come from a single parent family (dad) so know just how good fathers as carers can be. Problem is for me that has set me up with high expectations of men! In my situation it was because my mother passed away quite young and to this day (20 years on) dad hasnt remarried. But he was always an involved father from day dot, and I think this set him up well to cope when the unexpected happened. Also helped that his parents years ago taught him the basics of how to cook,clean and look after himself (quite progressive for that age, as he was a war baby).

As for income-set contribution percentages, well the idea is to put the financial burden on the parent that is more equipped to carry it. I had a quick go at the calculator on the CSA website, and I'd get about $10/week from my husband based on our respective incomes, if I had full care (highly likely). Why, because I earn significantly more than him. Of course, that means that I would then carry the burden of both physically raising and financially providing for our children, which is kind of unfair in itself. But then, that's what happens now!

Hi all!
I have three children, two are from my current relationship and my eldest, from the previous. Now i have been on both sides. I never thought the minimum i paid of $21 a month (because of low wage) was enough and tried to buy as much as i could, clothes and shoes, uniforms etc. and did not ask for it to be 'credited'. I was not well and in a situation, my son has been back with me since 2001. Now i am the one receiveing the payments, voluntary and not often paid. Now my son is seeing his dad again, the child support stopped. I know his father feels that as he is paying for things like bus fare that he does not feel he should. I know this because in order to have something considered for 'credit' you have to have paid what you owe. it happened, and now i am waiting for child support to contact me and ask if i approve. I don't want to agree because as i felt, it's your child you pay what you pay off your own volition, not forced, just paid for.
But at the same time, i do not have to pay for two days of bus fare to school and lunch for one day, so you can see how i will agree as it helped directly my purse, But any stuff like the ipods are a no. Doesn't matter if items come here, they are items he bought off his own back, what's next credit for birthday presents!
The issue of how much: Right now it has changed from the minimum to a bigger chunk,increase in income, so from $25 to $170. Now consider my partner has paid the difference in those amounts, he believes that as he took on the role willingly then he should pay as if he were his son. He also believes the dad should pay something, uniforms, books, clothes. A set amount is a perfect way because every child is catered for, equally.

Yes go-mum I appreciate your comments.
I feel that all children should be supported by way of free food at school (three meals a day), free uniforms and free travel to and from school. This is regardless of whether you earn a small wage or a large wage. After all, why should children from lower income families be supported and those from higher incomes miss out. In my own case we received child endownment payments for my daughter up until she turned two then centerlink said we earned too much so the cut out the payments. You see the problem is that most high income earners, apart from the packers of the world, pay more tax, receive little or no benifits and when they retire don't quailfy for a pension. So, in the case of a parent that is a high earner and paying 30% of their gross wage to child support finds themselves without enough to start another family even if the other partner finds a rich partner. I feel a set amount should be [paid per child with all monies paid into a state run fund then the carer should have a atm card that can only be spent on child related expenses as oppossed to achohole and drugs as is the case so often. And of cause it's like anything else where the bad eggs, usually the minority, create these issues that rest of us are left to deal with.
rehctub

rectub, the thing with our welfare system is that is meant to be a safety net, ie to catch those on very low incomes that do not have the means (for whatever reasons) to support themselves. Higher income earners have a reasonable ability to support themselves. The reason that they miss out on the pension when they retire is that they have accumulated sufficient assets through their own endeavours (the upper limit beyond which the pension cuts out entirely is now $820,000, which is pretty generous) to not require further assistance. They are still entitled to a number of tax concessions (such as the senior Australians tax offset, and zero tax on super proceeds), that leave them a lot better off than when they were working. If we did as you propose and provided welfare to all no matter what their status, then our individual tax burdens would be very much greater than what they currently are. And we are a country that is very sensitive about high taxation.

country girl imagine a system that rewards those who contributes with ideas like: the more tax you pay throughout your life means you retire on a high pension. Then the less you pay, for whatever reason means you retire on a minimal pension. This would help to ensure high income earners, many of them self employed, paid the taxes they where supposed to. After all, why should those of us who contribute more end up with less.The gun buy back was a classic example. 2% levey if I recall on medicare. This meant that the more you erned the more you paid towards the buy back, even if you where like me and possessed no illegal firearms. We are now seeing the result of welfare dependent faimilies established back in the 80's. The parents didn't work then, niether did thier kids and now their kids kids are being paid to have kids even though the children miss out in many cases because the money gets wasted.

As for the $820K cap, imagine if you as an investor purchased an investment property in inner Brisbane back in 1990. You paid around the mid $300K's and it's now worth $1M + why then should you be punnished by not receiving the benifits you were promised.
You see income tax fraud and the black eccomomy all exist as a result of the system taking more and more away from the hard worker who contribute the most yet receives the least and, until some serious changes are made to the system it is the kids who have nothing to do with it who miss out the most.

So why are two children of the same age given different values when it comes to child support simply because they are from different back grounds. The system sucks and the lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank. rehctub

I was a single (male) parent once with up to 5 children in my care. A judge held that the mother (in 1992) having only an income (then) of $912.00 a WEEK could not afford to pay any child support. (Tell that to non-custodian fathers!) The mother then took me to Court to pay $50.00 a week child support for the daughter I had already been caring for since 1986! The idiot of a judge even went as far as to tell me I better have an excuse why I should not pay the $50.00 a week child support. In the end he accepted that as I had all along the child, since she was 1-year-old, and caring for her full time, then I should not have to pay child support to the non-custodian mother for this child!
Finally, in 1999 a judge ordered the mother to pay $20.00 a week. She paid about $300.00 in total and then stopped. The Child Support Agency pestering me to drop the claims against her, making clear that unless the debt was above $5,000.00 they could do nothing. Even after it went past $5,000.00 they again requested me to drop it but I didn’t. Finally, the mother was required to pay $5.00 a week from the arrears, well after my daughter became an adult! And, the child support Agency making known they haven’t got any records what monies they receive actually is being paid out to me as they do not keep records as to monies that are drawn. So, the Child Support Agency (considering the millions of children involved) seems to rip of parents by not actually paying the parents all monies received and not having any records as to what is actually paid out and to whom.

Previously, in 1985 my-former-(first)-wife had taken me to Court for child support. During cross examination I questioned my (then) wife if in fact there had been an order for one of the children and this was $10.00 a week and in fact I had been paying her about $75.00 a week on average.
Continued

Her barrister then stood up and withdrew the child support application. After the hearing I made known to the barrister that it was the end for me paying child support as I had paid far in excess of what I had to pay and the orders had expired upon the hearing before the judge as they had been formally set aside by the judge at commencement of the hearing. So, that was the end of it. When later the children came into my full-time care I didn’t seek any child support from the non-custodian mother.

There was this man who made clear he could not afford to pay child support but was ordered by the Courts, including the High Court of Australia to pay child support. After the High Court of Australia ordered this again, the Child Support Agency refunded him the monies he had paid as after all he was held not to own any monies!
Now lets see, this man was self employed and as such allocated himself some monies as to wages to avoid having to pay child support and had the business paying for all his further needs, making it tax deductable. In the process he became a multi millionaire.

Actually, I published earlier this year a book about it and it included the refund details by the Child Support Agency!

As a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” I am well aware that the Framers of the Constitution made clear that the legislative powers of the Commonwealth over children should not be as to reduce them to slaves.
Hence, I view the child support does precisely this, albeit unconstitutionally.
My view is that Child Support should be abolished.
there is a lot more to it but too much to set out in the posts.

DearMr Gerrit
I see you appear to have been delt the raw prawn however I don't agree with abolishing child support as it is the inocent children that miss out. I do however think that the idea of a set amount per child, regarless of their social status in life is a better way.
You see when a family breaks down the children go with the mother in most cases. If the mother finds hereself in a wealthy relationship the kids become better off yet the fartther, under the current system, can't improve his situation due to the ever increasing child support that is adjusted to his wage.

I also belive that if the system was on a level playing field where the father (in most cases being the non custodial one) had to pay an affordable set amount he would then be in a position to either enjoy his time with his kids when he gets them, buy things for them out of his spare earnings, or perhaps even start a fresh life knowing he won't be screwed if he works longer hours or betters himself.

I had a youg lass working for me recently where her defacto partner had 2 children he was paying maitinance to. When they rented a house together as a couple, his child support was calculated from their combined income. Even if this was wrong at the time, it didn't stop her from comming to work in a distressed manner and then her partner gave up his job as the system was placing to much strain on their relationship. This failed soon after however their were no additional children involved.
I have no doubt that if he had been made to pay a set amount per child/age they would have enjoyed their loving relationship to this day.
rehctub

Celivia, sorry I've been away for a while.

As I understand it FTB and other child related government payments require a CSA assessment to have been done. CSA will not accept any agreement based on a smaller amount than their assessment so if you have a private agreement for a different amount you are at risk of the other party later claiming you are defaulting.

CSA seem to have internal performance measures which encourage making the maximum assesments they can (managerial performance pays based on money transfered, organisational reporting based on the same measure). Those kind of measures create a temptation to bias assessement in favor of payee's rather than actually taking circumstances into acount. Their assessment process is in some ways adverserial in nature and may have flow on's. Someone who chooses to minimise their paid employment for lifestyle reasons is unlikely to want to admit to that in an official assessment in case that impacts on other government handouts.

R0bert

Rehctub, I proved that despite over the years only having had $300.00 on child support I managed to survive. Sure, I moved into the country as to be able to afford buying a home but nevertheless I did and 2 of the 5 children were full time homes schooled by me! Not uncommon women would claim that because I was a man I had it better because I could do my own court cases, do my own repairs on the property, etc, and as such it was easier for me to do without child support, but the truth was that travelling with up to 5 children to attend court, etc was in itself very expensive, besides the harm to the children. As such the 300-dollars I received then over an about 15 year period hardly was making me rich as the paperwork and travelling to the Courts did run into thousands of dollars. I did it however as to make a point that while the Child Support Agency doesn’t hesitate to (unconstitutionally) take possession of monies held by a non-custodian father in a bank account they have a different conduct when it comes to a non-custodian mother.
If child support were to be abolished it will not really make one difference to the children themselves. It will stop the “rich-father” hunting by some women to allocate the person having the best income to be the desired father so the more on child-support can be obtained.
No man will know for certain if he fathered a child as he is unknown if his wife had an extra matrimonial affair with an other man at the time of conception. Hence, I view paternity testing should be compulsory at birth of any child.
At times inheritance can make a considerable issue, and while some of my children are not my biological children, that is what I accepted myself, and my will expressly provides for equal division of my estate to all children! It was my decision to do so!
No one conned me in that regard!
Continued

However, I do not accept any man to be conned in that regard.
Abolish child support and many conflicts now occurring would disappear as with the decades of having been involved assisting people in Family Law matters far too often child-support was a major if not the major issue.
In my previously published books I have set out an alternative scheme as to have monies being paid into the government coffers and this money is then paid out on a need basis for any child. As such, every child should have the same financial support and not that a child who’s non-custodian parent is on the dole or otherwise can swindle the taxation department about not earning an income then is denied appropriate financial support where as other non-custodian parents who are honest end up paying huge amounts of child support that not only denies them to have a reasonable existence but also undermines any proper ability to have access (contact) with their child(ren)
Child support is a curse!
My view is not of letting children starve to death, to the contrary, to provide for all children support and not just where some non-custodian parent can be held to pay while certain millionaires can get off not earning enough! If child support is that important then why is the Government tolerating children who’s non-custodian parent cannot or will not pay child support to go without?
More then likely the real issue is that the Government pretend to care about children, while in fact using Child-Support for its own benefits (too much to include in this posting, while children without child support are at times going hungry.
Because-I-know-what-it-is-to-be-a-single-parent, as-I-did-it-for-so-long, I-know-what-it-is-about, and-my-views-are-based-upon-experiences.
Marriage is a contract and if one of the parents wants to hop out then I do not accept that the parent ending up to be the non-custodian parent should be financially crippled while the custodian parent can start setting up another life again.
Increasing “child endowment” and getting rid of the “child support” in my view is the way to go!

Dear Mr Gerrit
Sounds like you and I are on similar grounds here and I would like to know some of your books as I too have several (what I consider to be fairer) way of supporting children.
For starters I beleive that all monies paid for children including child support by non-custodial parent, family assistance payments etc should all be paid into a consolidated revenue account run by the government. Then every child should be provided with three meals a day from the tuck shop, uniforms for school all provided free of charge. You see the way the system works now is the the less you contribute the more you reveive by way of hand outs which quite simply sucks. Until we have a system that recognises that all children are equal we will forever have the situation whereby people are forced into breaking the law and as always there is a winner and a looser with the winner being the lawyers and the looser being the children.

I CAN ONLY BUT AGREE WITH YOUR MOST RECENT COMMENTS, AND THIS ALSO ON CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS.

Currently the Child Support Agency is collecting monies but as I recently discovered they have no records if the monies received actually was paid out to the custodian parent.
The Child support Agency is dealing with billions of dollars and making a nice profit on interest when delaying the payout to the custodian parent or not paying out the monies at all.

Neither would they know if cheques are for example cashed in by their own staff as I was given the understanding that they do not check if any cheques issued are actually being drawn and by whom if they are.

I still have some cheques, after some years, and they couldn’t even tell me if the monies were drawn or not. Obviously it had not as I still have the cheques. So, how many millions have been collected, driving non-custodian parent up the wall, so to say, and then being kept by the Child Support Agency one should ask.
Today, I received a response from the Commonwealth Ombudsman that he is going to investigate my complaint about the Child Support Agency1
We will see!
.
The Framers of the Constitution made clear that all moneys collected by the Commonwealth of Australia must be placed in consolidated Revenue and can only be drawn by way of Appropriation bills. We have however that the federal government has its own unconstitutional scheme operating and by this can use monies without any check and balances.
.
Hence, placing the monies received in Consolidated Revenue, as you suggest, is in fact what should all along have been done, with any monies received as “DEBT TO THE COMMONWEALTH”.
Still, the constitutional question is how can a private debt become a DEBT TO THE COMMONWEALTH one may ask if the monies, after having been received goes to a private person or is held secretly?
.
In my view every child should be entitled to a certain minimum standard of living,
Continued

and if the Federal Government and so the Courts hold that Child-Support is to ensure that children are being provided with this minimum-standard-of-living then what about the children who’s non-custodian-parent does not pays child-support or where the parent is dead, etc?

When one of my adult daughters was still a toddler I took her non-custodian-mother to court for child support. The judge accepted that her (new) husband was not my daughters step-father as the mother remarried while I was still alive. The mothers-lawyers also agreed and submitted that the new husband had no financial obligation toward the child. I agreed that in that position the new-husband had no obligation by merely for being married to the mother. The judge then asked me what I was on about if nevertheless I pursued that his income should be considered. I explained that as the mother was claiming expenses of his union membership, the car purchased for his work, etc, etc, then by virtue of this she had involved her new-husbands work expenses and so should for this also then include his income. The trial judge ruled that on that basis indeed the new-husbands income was to be considered as part of the income.
Still, in the end the trail judge held that they couldn’t afford to pay child support! The judge even allowed the mother to claim as her own the telephone bills incurred in her fathers name (who had died before the hearing).

When a millionaire can get away with it not to have to pay a cent on child-support while wage-earners have their wages garnished it spells trouble! And,-the-effect-upon-the-children-is-not-to-be-overlooked.
Yet, an increase in Child-endowment would resolve this all as then non-custodian parents could still have their own decent kind of living rather then being crucified, so to say, even so they may not even have been at fault of the marriage breakdown.
considering how much money will be saved by avoiding conflicts about child-support, court times, etc we should act sensible and address the issues as a matter of urgency, if anything for the sake of the children involved.

Mr Gerrit
The entire system is to blame for most millionares avoiding taxes, child support and alike. In most cases wealthy people are hard workers, don't plan their working live's around their social events and have to continually put their hand in their pockets due to the fact that they receive no support from the government. Infact, in most cases they pay 2 or 3 times for things such as ambulance levey, medicare and alike, all for the sake of ensuring that the (less fortunate) as they like to be known as can go to a doctor and not have to shell out the 40 bucks that the rich have to pay as the rich don't qualify for handouts. The fact is that the current system means that if you work harder you have the previlage of paying extra to medicare as it is a % of your income but you are not elidgible to use the sytem.
Imagine a system where the more you contributed to the system throughout your working life, by way of taxes paid, the better looked after you would be in your retirement. I myself have been out of work, by choice, for 1 year out of my 35 working years and been on the dole for a total of 3 weeks back in the late 70's after leaving school.
You see most millionares are self employed and from average educational leveles and have had a pretty plain start in life, myself included, and have structures in place to minimise their taxes all because there is little or no incentive to be honnest.
I feel the entire system needs to be placed on a level playing field and all hand outs be shared to all children regarless of their social social status. If achieved the world would be a better place. Reward for effort is my motto, not, gee your a nice guy for working so hard so we don't have to.

My wife very much has an issue with the GST as when AMP dropped down so much that we lost a lot of money we were still slugged on other investments. While John Howard spend so much going after the workers, he did nothing at all to go after the big companies that are robbing retired workers of their life savings. As such let the hard workers bleed to death!
And, my wife questions why on earth she cannot enjoy her retirement where she worked so hard all her life paying huge amount of taxes!
As she makes clear she should be able to enjoy her retirement and not being slugged time and again GST.

I for one have serious doubt s that the special levy (if you are not in a private health funds) is constitutionally valid!

Considering the 1.2 billion of dollars and counting John Howard so far has spend on advertisement it shows he could not care less what is really in the best interest for the people, rather that he is concerned what he can get out of it, and his party.

I understand that some years ago Peter Costello gambled about 5 billion dollars away on the future funds. That may underline how ignorant they are with our money!

In my view if we return to the way the Constitution was intended, and get rid of the GST, the university fees, etc, then as a society we would do a lot better.
Just consider. A student (for becoming a doctor) has to pay huge university fees and when finally getting a job needs to charge fees to repay this. Hence abolishing university fees in the long run will be a lot cheaper. by this it would not matter if you are of a riuch family or a poor family as if you show to have a brain then those will qualify for university.
And, we all end up paying less for medical and other fees!

Celiva said

Rehctub, RObert,
children who need to accept changes (e.g. sea or school change, dropping a hobby) when part of a stable, loving family, I imagine would cope better with those changes than children who are caught between fighting parents and have to deal with extra stress and need to adjust to constantly move back and fro between two parents’ homes as well. It’s a lot to cope with for young children.

Pale replies
Quite rightly so Celivia. Of course that makes better sense.
MR Gerritt- Interesting.
I dont think Government should pay for our own children.
For pity sake if people cant supply three meals a day for their own children they shouldnt have them.
You cant bring children up expecting welfare and hand outs.
It destroys them. Look at the aboriginal people.We certainly didnt help them giving hand outs.

Really each situation is very different.
If a parent has to travel to visit, So be it. Rather the parent be a bit put out than our little kids who deserve a wing free visit.

Not everybody can stay nailed to the one spot in life simply because there x hasnt moved on.
99% of people love their kids. For the ones who dont want to travel without a moan then dont.
People end up living in different states and sometimes other countries.
Thats just life and we have planes and access so Mum if Dad has them or Dad if Mum has them can see each other as often as agreed. Telephones are able to be used daily.

We should never complain about travelling to see our children if the other party has them pretty much full time.

After all second marraiges normally involve several other parties and often other children and other parents so somebody is sure to be going to have to travel.
There is a increasing trend in `some males` to prefer their wife or x wife works while they seek custody, centerlink.
Only a few thank goodness

Mr Gerrit
As for your issue with AMP I must remind you that most shares were issued in good faith by the company simply for just belonging to the organisation. When floated they reached $40+ (allbeit for a very short period) and stabled around the $24 mark before crashing. I do not know your personal situation but the majority of investers had ample oppotunity to cash in FREE SHRARES and make a killing but they oppted for the alternative greedy option and lost.
With regards to GST.
As a small business owner myself I feel they got it wrong by giving us a rebate on GST while slugging the consumer. All GST that I pay is credited while all GST paid on day to day living expenses by individuals is exuabed. Why? I have no idea other than to suggest that the country is run by under acheivers who are not capable of earning the big bucks in the corporate world. This is eveident when Mr Packed paid his accountant $2 million per year while Mr Costello gets a pitence of this.
With regards to the people for live export, as a butcher, (my call sign is butcher spelt backwards) we have the poor struggling farmers to blame for live export and high prices. They get assistance when it rains, assistance when it doesn't rain and they shaft us when the overseas market pays better than the domestic market. Another topic alltogether. Rehctub

When it comes to travelling it is nonsense to argue that the non-custodian parent should be lumped with this. In my view, it should be the parent who moves away!
For the records, the Framers of the Constitution provided custody and guardianship to the Commonwealth as a legislative powers because-then-already-women-would-move-with-their-children-interstate and then the husband had to try to get access. After more then one hundred years the Federal Government still hasn’t managed this either to resolve. And, there is an election coming up, isn’t there?
At the time of the custody case my daughters mother contemplated to more to Swan Hill, and so I then purchased a property close to Swan Hill and moved there. Well, when I obtained custody the mother moved in opposite direction and then complained about the 500 kilometres (1000 round trip) distance. This, when she did it to herself!

For the sake of the children access needs to be provided as much as possible, and when I gained custody for 4 of my other children, in view of the distance from Melbourne, I offered my former wife overnight accommodation albeit I made clear my bedroom was off limits. So, she would stay for the weekend, and always had her demands!
Still, I did it for the sake of the children. First, they didn’t want anything to do with her as after all she had nearly strangled to death one of the children, but I explained to them that it was still their mother.
Keep in mind that previously, when she had custody, she would at times refuse access, etc.
So, when I ended up with custody I decided to teach her how it should be done, by cooperating. I did not seek revenge as I held this would be selfish and against the children’s interest.
And, now that the children are all grown-up they do talk about it that at least I pursued to keep the peace and did not conduct my self in a nasty way.
Causing access to be beyond the financial means of the other parent is against the childrens interest!

Rehctub, on my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH I did set out something about farmers and also about the GST.

In K-Mart they sell 18 rolls of toilet paper for $3.99. The same brand and package is selling on the Sunday-market for $4.00!
Now, K-mart has its overhead cost such as staff, advertisement, etc where as the Sunday market stall holder pays little for the stall, yet charges actually 1 cent more! But, ask about GST receipt and you get none. So, why is it that the Sunday market charges GST prices and does not generally pay it in taxation?
This involved so many items that it is millions-of-dollars every day markets are trading. Now, when it comes to a butcher, he cannot do this on a market and so has his overhead cost, etc, and end up paying the GST and making up by this for the millions not being paid by marker stall holders, garage sales, etc.
As such, we all are being ripped off.
Get an electrician, for example, to purchase a part and he then add on his own GST on top of the GST already charged by the seller. The whole GST is a rip off in my view.
The poor (including those on Centrelink) are paying the GST which is nevertheless not paid by many traders to the Taxation Department. I have been writing to Treasurer Peter Costello for years about this but he had never responded and neither fixed the problem. And he wants to be Prime Minister?

As for PALEIF about the Government paying for keeping children, that is wrong as it are the taxpayers who carry them. When a disaster strikes in a family, for example the death of a parent we as a society do better to invest in the future and provide sufficient for the children! After all, if we don not, the cost to have them placed in care will be far more expensive!
I gave a man on the street some money, and months later he walked in a suit! The money had changed his life for the better!

Mr Gerrit
The Sunday farmers Markets DO pay tax. They pay fifty to a hundred and $150.00. Rent!. That does into taxes.
Nothing wrong with helping a family who parent has died etc. Thats what Welfare is for.
There is a big big problem however when people expect to live off welfare as a country policy.
We should provide for our own children unless as you say there is a REAL case for Chaity.
As it is we have about one third working to carry the rest.
Outragous.

I have been given the understanding by stall-holders at markets that they have to pay for the usage of the market and that is it.
You may not be aware of it or belief they are paying a lot of taxes but be assured not to many would do so.
I have a conduct that I go to a stall-holder and ask for the price of an item even so I have no interest in buying it. And walk away after I was given the price of the item. I know that doing this then the next time they give me a better price for something I do want to purchase. As such, whatever a stall-holder sells it for is depending upon what kind of customer he thinks you are. Then, they do not issue GST receipts as is required by law if they do charge GST. Still, ordinary prices do include GST!
.
Personally I do not mind for society to financially carry the cost of a single parent to care for one or more children, as this is a lot cheaper then placing the children in care, where this related to a situation where it cannot be otherwise. However, I do mind if it is a women who deliberately go out of her way to get pregnant but without having the father around, as to live of social security.
Likewise I do not mind that we as a society look after the ill and the misfortunate person but I do mind having our taxation used for drug addicts, alcoholist, gamblers, etc, where they are bringing up to themselves.
As such, if a woman or man looses a partner (say by death) and by this ends up needing social security then I view we as a society should provide for them in times of need.
Look at the farmers. I have written a piece about them, that I do not mind assistance to be provided but it must be done in a proper manner.

continued

For example, get a desalination plant in the Mallee (Victoria) so that any assistance is worthwhile while long term solution is taken care off. Children become what we teach. Our current Federal Government lies that much that children has no respect and then demonstrate this in their conduct. Teach children respect and we are all the better for it. Likewise so in assisting children in need, they in turn when they grow up will do the same for others.
What comes around goes around!
.
My wife and I feed magpies in our backyard and they come even at the back-porch, at times two dozen.
The do not cause us any harm.
They often, in their way, sing for us. Eat out of our hands also. Yet most people are scared from magpies.
It is just that we teach magpies we do not seek to harm them. And, if we are in the house they keep singing until my wife or I come out to feed them.

If bird, some assume have little intelligence, nevertheless can manage to learn then if we apply this to children and that people should care for those in need we all might be a lot better off.
After all, your life export issue very much is that if people care enough not to cause cruelty to animals it would avoid the current issue about animal cruelty.
It is showing by example to care. Being humans or animals!

Mr Gerritt
We seem to have wondered off from parents responsibilty to welfare.
I agree with much of what you say. However welfare as you agree was set up for real welfare cases.
No I will not fund one or two kids per household to unmarried mothers.
We require a licence to drive a car yes?
People need to be answerable for their own actions.
War widows get less then young girls having kids on purpose with no plans to provide- Even couples.
As for Animals - Simply every humane should care and help.
However I tell you what Mr G if a person meets a new partner and together they can make a better life for ALL kids involved then they should be applauded!
You may acknowledge as we are broken marriages and young ones there is normally two couples and several children involved from both partners x marriages.

What must be considered is ALL the children and nobody should be forced to give up prime care of children if they move.

People should keep main custody unless proven they are not looking after the children
The part time parent who see the children on visit right should not be the "first" consideration the children should./

PALEIF, I agree with the first part of your post.

Discussion of the issue of parents moving away from the area appears to be deeply distressing to your friend Taryn and yourself so why do you continue to push the issue? How much do you want to hurt her? You have posted similar remarks in other threads but past experience would suggest that you both find the contrary view offensive.

I've avoided rebutting your point out of a wish not to provoke further outbursts on your part and a desire not to contribute to further hurt to Taryn. Do you really want the issue discussed or would you prefer it to be left alone?

R0bert

Well it appears that we are going off track so best we take stock on what has come out of all this. Firstly, thanks for all your input as I feel from your comments it is quite clear that more needs to be done to make it a level playing field. Just remember kid are kids and what they really need more in life than anything else is a safe home to go to and a loving family, whether it be their maternal parents or not. I feel that most wayword kids today are products of a non caring and loving family. Lets face it, if the money issue was resolved whereby all children were supported with a comon value dependent on their age, the non-custodial parent would then have the oppotunity to provide love and effection to the children of his/her newfound partners children in the knowledge that they would not be screwed by the system simply because they have a new lease on life and are attempting to better themselves.

Well it appears that we are going off track so best we take stock on what has come out of all this. Firstly, thanks for all your input as I feel from your comments it is quite clear that more needs to be done to make it a level playing field. Just remember kid are kids and what they really need more in life than anything else is a safe home to go to and a loving family, whether it be their maternal parents or not. Lets face it, if the money issue was resolved whereby all children were supported with a comon value dependent on their age, the non-custodial parent would then have the oppotunity to provide love and effection to the children of his/her newfound partners children in the knowledge that they would not be screwed by the system.
rehctub

Having been involved in Family Court cases for decades, assisting in many cases, it would be absurd to take the maintenance issue separate from the non-custodian other financial obligations.
It should be understood that while financial support for children to have an appropriate lifestyle is important you cannot ignore the mental and emotional support the children need from having contact with the non-custodian parent and any half siblings that may exist.
I am too well aware that many woman upon separation move away, preferable interstate as to make any contact between the non-custodian parent and the children about sheer impossible. Hence, those women are themselves acting against the interest of the children in their custody.
While I accept that upon separation one of the parent may prefer wanting to move away from a town to another town, it is however another issue that the custodian parent moved interstate or even to another country.
I was assisting a woman who successfully obtained custody and she gave me the understanding that she could not care less how difficult it was for the father having to travel interstate to see his girls as she was free to move, as she did, where she wanted to live. Later the custody was reversed and then this same woman argued that as she had set up a new life in Victoria then the father should be forced to move where she was living so she could have access to the children! As such, she had contradictive views pending how it did suit her.
I came often across simular cases, so to say, where whom ever had the power of custody dictated whatever suited them and so to say the hell with what was really in the best interest of the children.
A non-custodian parent forced by this to spend huge amount of moneys to fund travelling, overnight accommodation, etc, then would be limited in what this non-custodian parent could financially contribute toward the children. Hence, both parents must act with common-sense! When I was myself a custodian parent, this is the rule I successfully followed

To add further, when I had court cases with my second wife, I would travel down from the country and stay over in a spare room for the court hearing the next day. We would travel together to the Court. During the hearing I would cross-examine her also. During lunchtime we would have our meals together, I paid for it, and after the Court hearing we would travel back together to her place. Sure, her lawyers were telling her this was not acceptable but this was disregarded as while we had a legal issue it was not necessarily for this to erupt in further personal conflicts otherwise.
Sure, in the past she had attacked me with a knife and had pleaded guilty to assault upon me, but I wasn’t going to hammer on this time and again as it would not resolve anything. Now, many years after I divorced her, she still calls me up on my birthday (to annoyance of my current wife) to wish me a happy birthday. She commenced to do so after I divorced her. She also phones in to remind me about any upcoming birthday of the children.
From the nasty and violent wife she was during the marriage, the children have given me the understanding that after I gained custody of them and did not retaliate against her in a power play she changed dramatically in her attitude.
Many woman claim (rightly-or-not) they were abused during the marriage but so was I and I got over it and, so to say, the prove is in the pudding that my former wife no longer display the streaks of violence and aggressiveness as she displayed previously.
Regretfully, I came across many woman who could not get over it and continue to hammer on about past problems. They put their own kind of feeling for revenge or whatever it might be before the interest of the children. Then deliberately move away to try to limit contact with the children and then scream blue-murder, so to say, for a so called “dead-beat-father”. Well, there are also “dead-beat-mothers”!

Rehctub
Yes we are getting off track your correct. I just get rather annoyed at these professional unmarried mothers who plan a free ride and expect others to pay their way in life.

Did you see the lady on a current affair planning to have eleven woith eleven different Dads.
I get so angry the government dont go out and arrest her or something.
Mr Gerritt we know through experience is a wonderful person who sits up until 3am at times replying to others with free advise.

Of course this is well away from Live exports however as we often help others as well as animals its a thread that does interest me.

Rehctub I hope you wont mind if I stray off track just this once to ask mr Gerritts advise on a family court matter

The lady has been waiting three years for property settlement. The x is in comtempt of court orders to go to auction.

Nobody cares as she pays daily interest.

A new lawyer suggested she go for more than the one thirds as originally agreed because her costs out weigh her share.

He told her to report a life of abuse by this man who was not only the x husband but step father.

He is a paedophile. Both State and federal say its one of the worste cases they have handled.

BUT they cant charge him because they have no proof- no other complaints- no witness.
I told her lawyer to pull the police statement out and not to ask more feeling the judge will not appreciate being put in such as position.

As it stands `hopefully` the courts will favour her given the three years delay and make him pay her legal costs.

However if she pushes the abuse without evidence I feel she may go down.
Would appreciate your thoughts if you dont mind Mr Gerritt.?

It has nothing to do with this office- except we support her and shes a wonderful person and mother.

Robert.
Robert we dont mind to debate you.

We do not appreciate your claiming we are cheating on OLO by the way in which we post with our tag.

Just because you did not like something either Taryn myself said that is no reason to start a thread claiming we were cheats and misusing our membership on OLO.

Taryn may post as she wishes.

Yes it would be fair to say Taryn got very upset over a post going back a long time ago. People went too far and she actually was hurt by it.
I do mean hurt in the physical sense.

No we know it wasnt YOU who posted the comment Robert. However several posters at the time said "they saw no reason why the personal insulting remark should not be left up."

She fought hard to get it removed as it was also an insult to her then one week old baby.
Her partner saw it and there was terrible problems.
She six days weeks in hospital.

Also her partner would never work. He was lazy. She worked two jobs to keep the four children. Shes a good Mum and lovely lady. She has principle unlike him. Shes moved away for a better life for herself and her children and her new husband has three children and a sick Mother that both he and her care for.

There is no way she should be forced to give her children to her x simple because shes re married. It was HER who supported them anyway not him. Of coure I am sure the x would love the kids so her could claim supporting parents money from centerlink.
She has told him he can see the children any time he likes but not her. I think thats fair.
Difference is both her and her husband work to provide for the seven children in all.
Good People and many second marraiges are bogged down with nasty x wifes or x husbands I agree Mr Gerritt. I am told her husbands x is just one of such types as well.

PALEIF, staying a bit off track but the residency issues are heavily tied in with the child support issues.

I was saddened to hear about the assault on Taryn when the details were posted a few weeks ago. I'll leave off further comment at this point but Taryn's comments indicate that there was more than just the post involved. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=989#18021 and http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=989#18082

I'm not opposed to children being moved away from a parent where there is a genuine ongoing risk of abuse, sometimes kids need that protection. I don't think it is fair to those not making the choice to move away for lifestyle reasons. If someone chooses to do so the consequences should as far as practical stay with the person making the choice to relocate.

You've claimed elsewhere that my views on this are about controlling people, that is what our family law system is supposed to do. It's not all that different to what you do, seeking to limit the actions of others. PALEIF seeks to limit the actions of live exporters and intensive farmers because of the view that their actions harm others (the animals being exported or intensively farmed).

I think that the interests of children are best served by their parents making responsible choices. Those choices are about doing your best to make life choices which fit your obligations to your children. Starting a relationship with someone where development of the relationship will require someone to move away from children or the childrens other parent is not putting the children first.

In relation to the current topic if for some reason the only viable solution to child care arrangements following one parents decision to move away is for the children to go with them I think that the other parent should be absolved of financial responsibility for those children, perhaps even compensated for their loss. I don't see any reason why they should pay for kids whose lives they can't play a meaningfull part in because of someone elses decisions.

R0bert

PALEIF
your bashing of Robert is in my opinion unwarrented and somewhat unsubstantiated. This x as you reffer to appears to have more than one child to this lady. Did he change all of a sudden or is this the same x she chose (SHE CHOSE) to have several children to.

I think that without the facts it is very difficult to make an assessment of someone

Mr Gerrit
I have looked at you blog and can I just say that as a small business owner since the late 80's I have never witnessed a more dramatic adverse effect on small businesses than when the unfair dismissle laws were introduced. Within a short period we saw the emergance of many one man businesses as the owners were petrefied to employ anyone which resulted in many businesses deploying a 'closed shop' approach to employment.

God help us if we see these laws reintroduced because the effects will be huge. The mining industry is a classic. Being the driving force behind the economy at the moment, any forced changes to their employment arrangement may well place this great nation into recession again. Lets face it there is enough pain with interest rates at 8%, imagine if we see 18% again.

As for super contributions I feel that all entitlements should be paid on a weekly basis and if the recipient (employee) can't budget tough luck. The sheer cost of compliance for small business is rediculous. And now to make matters worse the employee gets to choose their own super fund so we may have several funds which we have to place contributions into. Each time we make a transfer or write a cheque we get charged by the bank. All of this because the government have failed to provide for the future retirement plans of the workers and the workers are not capable of managing their own business affairs. And of cause as with all finacial burdons placed on business it is the consumer or the business owner who has to pay in the end. I wonder just how nay hurdels will be placed in my way before I can spend the money that I have saved for my retirement when I get there. All because we have this mantality that the under achiever has to be supported by the achievers of this world.
rehctub

Rehctub there was this man who at age 38 decided to cash in his superannuation. Now, the employer didn’t pay in superannuation contribution so this man could spend in on buying a racing car! This is the absurdity we have.
My view is that unfair dismissal laws, as like any other law, can be abused but we also must keep in mind that ample of employers were abusing the system.
In one case, an employer sought my assistance where a former worker had claimed to have been unfairly dismissed. His lawyers were, so to say, already counting the money. Just that I had a talk with his mother and she explained to me that he didn’t like living in a large city and wanted to move back to the country, as he did. Once I then filed the document for the employer making known what the former worker’s mother had stated, and he had no intention to return to his job the former worker quick smart withdrew his claim. And I did the service free of charge to the employer!
As such, I am well aware there is abuse, but again there are ample of workers, such as those on special visa’s who are being ripped of big time. Ironically the man who appeared in the WorkPlace adds is now charged with underpaying one employee $12,000.00 and another $14,000.00.
Perhaps Kevin Rudds proposed system may be the balance between the two evils? At least it will be an improvement.
With superannuation, it is really nonsense, as the employer simply works out total cost to employ a person, whatever the bits and pieces are. Hence, not the employer but the worker should be held accountable to place the monies in an account and then not some private company which can go broke, but a secure account, such as government bonds. I do not approve of people cashing in superannuation before retirement, squandering the lot and then having to rely upon welfare! It defeat the purpose of having superannuation in the first place.

PALEIF, in family life often incidents occur where one cannot prove one way or another certain events. As such a judge may consider the general conduct of the person as a witness in Court and from this may take the view that the person is generally honest and other statements not corroborated with evidence nevertheless can be accepted as being the truth or the judge may regard that the witness appears to be unreliable as a witness and as such any uncorroborated claims may be held not acceptable without supporting evidence.
No harm to place matters in affidavit provided it is done in an appropriate manner.
If there was violence then if the victim went to a doctor then the doctor may have records of attendances, even so no specific injuries were noted, the doctor may still have recorded something to his perception if violence did or didn’t occur.
As for property settlement, it doesn’t matter who worked in a paid job or not as the other partner in his/her way contribute to the earning, being it by housekeeping, looking after the children, etc.
In my view, if the Court made a property settlement and one of the parties causes ongoing problems which has a financial effect upon the other party then a Section 79A (as it was then) application could be made for the judge to amend the orders and to provide compensation for the additional cost, etc.
I was assisting a man in his custody case, and made clear I would not charge any cost but upon the understanding that if he lied I would step out and assist the opponent party if I held this was appropriate. The man offered me monies to conceal from the court he had received a superannuation pay-out, his wife never knew about existed. I stepped out of his case and he spend $13,000.00 on lawyers and still lost the custody-case, and his wife filed a Section 79A application, once she (later) was advised by me about the superannuation.
My credibility was never for sale!
Hence my trademark; MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

Mr Gerrit

With regards to your comment on unfair dismissal I am the first to agree that there are some rotten eggs on both sides of the fence. However, what you have not pointed out were the costs that were associated with the defence of the employer’s innocents. Firstly, he had to replace himself at the workplace. He then had his travel expenses to and from court then there would have been his lawyer’s bills as no doubt there would have been many letters to and frow prior to the case. You see it is quite simply much easier to avoid these situations rather than place ones self in a position whereby you may experience some conflict from an employee down the track. This is why I feel you will see some dire consequences should the unfair dismissal laws be re-introduced should we have a change of government.

As for super, this was introduced back in the early 90’s at 3% of the gross pay. At that stage a butchers wage (gross) was around $12.00 per hour. The introduction of super was also in lue of a pay increase at the time. So here we are now contributing 9% of $18.00 per hour and people say that we are wingers for not wanting to support our staff. In real terms the super contributions have increased by over 350% in this time.

Super should be contributed to employees who contribute themselves. After all, why should we contribute when they don’t have to.
rehctub

Has anyone collected statistics on how many men have suicided because of the viciousness of the Child Support Agency? I think many guys have been so hounded to death by the Agency for back maintenance that we would be stunned if we knew the number.

No Gibo I don't know how many men have although I know there have been several and in my opinion just there meer fact that it has happened at all is unacceptable.

While you're at it try to find out how many women have done this, if any at all.

I have several mates that are going through this as we speak and as amicable as they may try to make things there always seems to be the interferring freind who has to put her two bobs worth in and cause havic.

I know one case where the children were all adults when these freinds seperated after being married for 30 years. One would have thought that the judge would award 50-50 to the couple considering the kids were adults but, his x claimed that since they met she had never worked a day therefore due to the fact that she was now in her 50's and never worked the judge supported her case that she was to old to have to seek work now so he awarded her 85% of their welth.

Sad considering they had agreed on an amicle split of 50/50 until a freind of a freind put her intouch with a man hater lawyer.

This man, now in his 60's should be enjoying his retirment but now works full time. Just to rub salt into the wound he has also been ordered to provide her with $400 per week as she is incapable of earning an income. Ah, and did I mention that it was she who decided to seek an alternative as her hard working partner was at work all day and she got boared. Sucks hey!
rehctub

Lets consider this issue.
Husband and wife separate, after a long marriage and while the wife never worked the husband does take the view that she was as much part of the earnings as he was because after all, when he came home she had meals ready. She looked after the children, the house, was his companion, etc. Even so the children are now grown up, still he views that she should be entitled to half all assets, basically the house and furniture and half of the superannuation. The wife agrees with this. So, it seems for this that they have acted reasonable. Well, just that something is overlooked. The judge order the husband to pay out the wife’s superannuation at settlement as the house will not be sold because albeit they have separated and are to divorce neither want the house, where the children grew up in, to be able to visit their parents. So, the man is told by the judge that he has to cash on his superannuation and pay half of the current value of the superannuation to his wife. The man obviously protest and through his lawyer submits that it would be better that the Court orders that at retirement half of the superannuation value as applicable at the time of the orders, so that the superannuation is not severely reduced and in fact the man would have to pay the wife half of the superannuation now while by cashing in getting far less then that due to the early cashing in of the superannuation. The wife’s lawyers however argue that this does not suit the wife and the trail judge orders the monies to be paid out at settlement and failing this the house will be sold also.
One-would-ask-why-would-the-wife-as-asvised-by-her-lawyers-pursue-such-a-line-of-settlement if this is in fact risking that the house has to be sold also? While superannuation is for retirement, the Family Court ignores this Government policy! The lawyers are interested to make a buck out of any case, and in the end the husband and wife suffer both!

Yes I agree Mr Gerrit. This couple had ammassed quite a nest egg in property, as for super I don't know as his working life was all but over before comp super was inplimented. Furthermore, this was a gental loving man who was fully aware and accepted that his wife contributed to their situation, hence their initial agreement for a 50/50 split.

I know for a fact that the wife was given most of the assetts and I also know that they were sold at way below fair market value, not out of spite but rather that the wife had no idea of the values of these assetts at the time. This was also prior to the 2002 boom.

You see a man may be able to get over being screwed for most of his assetts and having to cough up his super NOW, but what really stinks in this case is the fat that this man, at 60, has to continue to support his x becasue she is deemed as being incapable of supporting herself.

And remeber, she sought another partner becasue he was out working hard to support her and build their retirement nest egg, then asked for a divorce. This is a true case and I know them personally.
rehctub

Gibo, that is very hard to do. CSA can't/won't release usefull figures.

I spent some time looking at that issue some years ago. From what I could see the only figures they are likely to have are the numbers of early terminations of child support because of the death of a parent - the gender and age breakups of those groups compared to the general population in similar age brackets would be indicitave of the overall impact on family breakup on death rates.

Even then CSA is not an island, they sit as part of a system that hurts people. My impression is of a system that empowers the schemers and manipulators regardless of gender but with some maternal bias built in as well. CSA may be more about the amount of money changing hands than about gender. Ocasionally women get done over by them as well.

Many suicides will be hard to be certain about - is a single vehicle accident a suicide or just a motor vehicle accident?

A few years ago a figure of about 30 male suicides a week resulting from family breakup was floating around but I never managed to get an understanding on what it was based on. I think it was an educated guess based on info the various mens support groups could gather.

It's a topic that needs serious research but I suspect that politically it's one that governments are unwilling to touch.

R0bert

Thanks ROBert. Thats a bit more insight than I had. I got interested in the subject of male suicides because of Child Support Agency persecutions through an ambulance friend who knew a few men that actually were pushed beyond the limit.

RObert & Gibo, As I indicated since 1982 I have conducted a special lifeline under the motto MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® and had to deal with people contemplating suicide/murder even mass murder.
When people are most vulnerable, when the split occurs, their metal and emotional status can be horrific. It is then when somehow they are demanded by the Family court to careful, so to say, put all the dots on the i’s and if they fail they are being burned further by the Courts. But, if a lawyer makes the same errors then it is being excused!
One man had been served with divorce papers of his wife, he was in Melbourne, and his wife in Queensland, where she had filed in the Family Court of Australia, and so he filed his response in the Family Court of Australia in the Melbourne registry. The court argued that his wife’s case was uncontested as he had not filed in the same registry!
Yet in other cases the Court accept a response filed in another registry.
The truth is that it should make no difference which registry it is as it is the same Court! Plainly the judges screwed this man!

Judgements at times make absolutely no sense as to the evidence that was actually before the Court, the simple truth is that judgments are at times made before the case is even heard! So, the orders are already issues before the witnesses have given evidence!

In one incident I took this up before the High Court of Australia and it merely argued that obviously the judge must have made an error. That was it. In legal terms once a judge does this the orders are null and void! However, with a High Court of Australia conducting it as such I can understand, albeit do not approve that people end up committing suicide where their hope in gaining justice is trashed!

Regretfully, too far often the term “custody” is seen as ownership of the children. When I gained “custody” I-saw-it-as-a-privilege and to-have-the-opportunity to show what is right for the children.

Oops, a typing error above “their metal and emotional status” should be “their mental and emotional status”.

In one incident I received 5 different versions of the same court order! I complained to the Court registrar that this was unacceptable. The registrar claimed that this can happen because the judge notes the orders and they are then typed out. Then the orders are reviewed and the person who reviews it may correct the orders what the person deems to have been ordered. The registrar then may correct any errors and the judge then reviews it and finally the registrar checks it again and may change what he deems need to be changed. All versions of the orders had however the judge signature, as every person uses a signature-stamp and there is no allocation of version number to show which version is in which sequence. With the orders “each weekend” ended up by the corrections to be “each alternative weekend” regardless that transcript showed the judge had clearly stated “each weekend”!
As an after note. After this complaint, I reported to the police I had been bugled and surprise, surprise, all court documents in the attache case had been stolen, NOTHING ELSE! However they were copies as expecting this the original copies had been safely stored elsewhere. That I called FAMILYGATE!

THERE WAS THIS MAN WHO CALLED ME THAT HE HAD BEEN NOTIFIED HIS SON RUN AWAY FROM HIS MOTHER AND WAS TRAVELLING TO MELBOURNE. I TOOK THE MAN TO THE POLICE STATION TO REPORT THIS. THE POLICE MADE KNOWN THAT IF THE CHILD ARRIVED THEN AS THE FATHER HE BETTER KEEP THE CHILD OVERNIGHT FOR HIS SAFETY. I ASKED THE POLICE TO CONTACT THE MOTHER. THEY DID AND SHE WAS UNAWARE THAT THE CHILD HAD RUN AWAY. Yet, the Family Court jailed the man for “kidnapping” the child! Later the Court dropped it, because he had never done so! It is then when a man contemplates suicide, because not being able to see to get JUSTICE.
LIKEWISE, MEN TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND-GETTING-SCREWED-BY-THE-CSA! That is another story.

Mr Gerritt
So sorry for delay in reply. I have been away. The problen for her is the evidence is in Germany and its history.
Meaning they cant find where she was addmitted to hospital.
Given the huge stuff ups with her past lawyers and the fact that the new one isnt any better I think she will just have to walk away from it.
There is nothing to be gained now as what was probably a simply matter has now dragged on for three years.
Her costs now outweigh anything she might have got.
I contacted the Federal Attorney General Office just yesterday to lodge a form complaint that abused people who are on disabilty do not have the right to appoint someone to speak on their behalf.
There is no way she can do it.
Our leagel sytem is a discrace. They said either she pays for a lawyer or does it herself.
Just imagine someone like her handling something like this and speaking about her own abuse.
The so called lawyer she has now has NOT filed one aff or scrap of paper.
Shes supposed to be back in court in a few days time and the judge already warned him to make sure this time she filed.
Poor lady. Every time she writes or calls her doesnt return the call.
Law Soceity simply say sue him. Sure what with.

Robert when children mainly live with one parent it is for a reason.
It is always that person who takes more reasonsibilty both finanically and time wise.
I cant believe you would suggest that the other parent should be given money to replace seeing their child.
You dont sell your kids. Thats outragous.

People who love their kids dont mind usually travelling and often take the children for school holidays.
So long as the children are happy really should be the 'only' concern.
Most people re married DONT bother with child maintance anyway.
So most x get to see them whenever they want but do not contribute other than birthdays or xmass.
Not all-Just most.

PALEIF, "Robert when children mainly live with one parent it is for a reason. It is always that person who takes more reasonsibilty both finanically and time wise."

The reason may be that one parent was better at playing the system early on, the person who initiates a seperation is in a far better position to get prepared for the seperation and maybe grab prime care straight up before the other gets the opportunity to make the necessary arrangements. It may be that the other party tried yet again to cooperate with their (now former) partner, and did not understand the long term implications of those early arrangements.

Ocasionally it may be that the parent with the kids "takes more reasonsibilty both finanically and time wise" but more likely that it's about the split of roles at the time of seperation, mum's desire to be the stay at home or part time worker and industrial laws that discriminate on the basis of gender.

I'm suggesting compensation for one of the greatest losses a person can face not the sale of kids. Nothing can compensate for that loss but that does not stop us having compensation for great harm caused in other area's of our lives which also do not replace the loss.

"People who love their kids dont mind usually travelling and often take the children for school holidays." - if that is the case then the person who chooses to move away from the area in pursuit of that other relationship should be quite happy to travel to see their kids or take them during school holidays.

R0bert

Robert
People don’t break up because of playing a system. They break up normally because they have been unhappy for a long time and were unable to talk whatever the problems were through.

When couples have reached that sad stage its hardly a surprise most times.
Many do not want the children living in a home with such anger and sadness and do something about it.

The fact is [most young children] say under ten are better off with the mother especially toddlers.
From the ages of about seven children actually get a say who they want to live with and the court does take that in consideration although with of course other facts.

I suppose I am from the old school because I do think it’s the mans place to provide and open doors and travel if there is any to be done. If you only see your children three times or year or not at all they are your flesh and blood and your reasonsibilty and the pay somebody not to see their kids is immoral and very bad for the child. There are video links and telephones, cars planes trains and buses.

Its easier on tiny tots especially if it’s a long trip. No I do not think men should sit home of a welfare card while the mother goes to work to support 100% and pay a hundred percent.
Also I don’t agree with ANYBODY raising kids on welfare. If you cant afford to raise them school them educate them yourself then you should not have any. Nobody can live on welfare without missing out on a great deal and why should poor little kids suffer.
Most people who divorce don’t re marry for several years. What I HATE is mothers and Dads who use! The little kids to be nasty.

PALEIF, I agree with the last part of your post and I like opening doors for others (both male and female).

I'm new school enough that I don't like unnecessary imposition of gender roles. I want a world where men and women can both make choices with as few external restrictions as possible.

I don't get my fuel at a cheaper price than a women, I don't get a cheaper airfare, I'm on the same pay scales as my female co-workers. Hard for me to see why my gender should require me to be the one to carry the cost for someone elses lifestyle choices.

I'll stand for those who appear to be physically less capable of standing than I am on public transport but I don't assume that women are somehow less capable than I am.

People generally don't break up by playing the system but many use the system to their advantage when they do break up and from what I understand often one partner does not know that it is coming.

They keep hoping that they will be able to work through the problems in the relationship, they might take their marriage vows more seriously than the other party does, they may see checking their legal options as a betrayal of the relationship or just not have any comprehension of the mine field they face.

If you don't agree with men sitting on welfare and leaving mothers to pay all the costs how are you when it's women sitting on welfare and leaving fathers to pay all the costs?

I've played an active part in my sons life right from the start. I've working full time and done much of the care outside of work hours.
I disagree with a system that assumes because of my gender I'm less important in my sons life than his mother.

I don't accept that the restrictions that lead my direct parenting role to be outside work hours (but still an every day role) could somehow mean that a few visits a year should be OK.

R0bert

I would oppose any parent to somehow getting financial compensation for not seeing his/her children. It is an absurdity. Likewise, I do oppose Aboriginals having obtained land under the claim of being traditional land (secret land) and it has traditional values, then next flog of the land for mining, etc. You simply do not sell land that is sacred!
If the world was perfect (100%) every child would live with both parents, but this is an illusion. When therefore due to misfortune, such as untimely death by car accident, children lose the breadwinner in the family, then we as a society should not rob those children of a decent life. You cannot have that the surviving parent goes to work with perhaps having a youngest child at 3 months old, and other young children. Anyone who proposes such a nonsense simply doesn’t understand the importance of children to be cared for by their own parent at such tender age.
It is however another thing if a female decides to deliberately get pregnant as to be able to live of social security. Over the decades I came across plenty doing so. Every couple of years they have another child, to secure future social security payments. And, by being on social security they usually can get LEGAL AID FUNDING.
I was involved in one case where the women had a new car, lived with her mother and had three children getting ample of child support, and yet never worked one day, to my knowledge.
Hence, those are abuses where society is not helping out but rather are, so to say, taken for a ride.
The-notorious-group-the-BLACKSHIRTS wanted to introduce that if one of the parents died the surviving parent immediately remarried or would loose the children. Hardly the kind of solution to give to a grieving parent having lost their partner in life to loose also the children unless he/she immediately remarries.
Our Constitution was based upon caring for our fellowman such as pensioners, the ill and the paupers. Well, just check how much the Federal Government did in over 100-years for paupers

It is nonsense to argue that young children are better of with mothers, as this is gender bias!
As for children under 7 (it is 10) to have a say in where the are going to live, time and again the judge use this (manipulate) to hand-down order he/she was going to hand down anyhow, if they don’t like it they ignore it! Simple as that.

As for someone appearing for another person in Court, in the State of Victoria, for example, you have the “Instruments Act”, where a person can appoint someone under POWER OF ATTORNEY or ENDURING POWER OF ATTORNEY. Technically the person can then conduct litigation on behalf of one or more persons, regardless of not being a lawyer. While Section 118 of the Constitution provides for recognition of State laws, federal judges at times ignore to allow for a person appearing under the Powers of Attorney to conduct a case, while other judges do allow for this. Constitutionally however they are in breach of Section 118 if they fail to allow for this. Also, in 1985 I created the document “ADDRESS TO THE COURT” and in 2003 I published a book; INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & ADDRESS TO THE COURT, A book on CD, making litigation a more level playing field,
ISBN 0-9580569-7-8 (After 1-1-2007; ISBN 978-0-9580569-7-7
So, a person who has problems to convey to the Court orally details can by this type it all up before hand, with or without the assistance of a lawyer, law student, or friend, and then file it in Court prior to the hearing. That way much of the pressure to attend to a hearing will evaporate as such and many have succeeded just by filing the document having the case thrown-out from onset, where it exposes legal “technical” problems for the case to proceed.

Mr Gerritt
and Robert
Firstly Mr Gerritt thanks! so much for your advise. I called the Attorney General ACT office last week however apparenlty its very much up to the judge. I Dont like our chances but will try the Power AT.
I never said welfare isnt good for the TRUELY needing. Just people who PLAN to 'live off it."
Robert
Its wonderful to hear some men are still gentleman!
Good for you.
I have travelled with this lady to court and she has a cane.
I dont normally travel much by public transport and it was a shock!. A real eye opener.
Young blokes sitting while little old ;ladies stand.
I was SO cross I contacted QLD rail upon our return.
Dont even START me on that subgect I felt like kicking them up the bum!
Again if a child is a baby MOST times they are better with Mummy until at least five BUT not always if Mummy is a druggie or drug which is quite a bit sadly now.
Welfare IS to blame.
Most of my friends in their second marraiges actually dont BOTHER asking for maintance from their x husbands etc.
However if a lady is NOT in a position to fund everything then of course the x should help his kids.
Maintance is VERY little anyway and not enough to raise a child.
Best not have them if you cant afford them is my advise.
Other than that EACH case is different but amoung my friends NONE get maintance and they USUALLY end up paying the kids air faires and pocket money to vist Dad twice a year. Most of the Dads are re marrired and struggling to pay the new familes fees.
Sad fact of life is money IS important I guess so make sure your marry for love the first time and sensibilty and sercurity the second time for the kids sake if nothing else I guess.
I am SURE your one of the good Dads.

Yes palif I agree that young ones today lack respect, however, some of this has been caused by the equality argument.

As an example I have always been brought up to respect my elders and be a gentalman towards women however I have been abused by women on several occations for simply opening a door at a shop. I have had comments from women like "don't you think I an capable of doing that for myself".

You see the world has gone mad and most of todays changes have been brought about by the 'do gooders' of society and as sad as it is we no longer live in the world we used to and we just simply have to get used to it.

Young people have an entirely different agender to day. They have no commitments, little ambition, no care for their future. Today they plan their working lives around their social lives and here we have the do gooders telling us that if we work 50 hours we are way over worked. Tell me, how can a young person get ahead in life if the spend every cent they earn, don't want to work hard and have littel or no plans for their future retirement.

Look out for the next generation to follow because they will be working every second day and won't work overtime. They will also have no inheritence so as to speak.
rehctub

palif with further regards to your recent posting how can you possibly say that maintinance is very litte when the very topic of my posting is that the way it is calculated, in my opinion, is unfair and devides our children into rich or poor.

Under the present system a non-custodial parent earning 100K + per year with three children in child support pays child suport in the order of around $10,000 per year per child or $200 per week while a similar sinario with an income of say 30K per year values the cost of supporting the children at just over $3,300 per year or a mezly $64 per week per child.

So what dollar value do you state to be 'very little'? Or, do you agree that each child should be supported with a set dollar per week amount that is calculated depending on the age of that child.

Obviously I feel that $64 per week would be an unreasonable amount to try to support a secondary grade student, however I would consider it to be ample for a child under 5years of age. On the other hand $200 per week is over the top irrigardless of their age, unless of casue we want to support a devided society of the haves and have nots.

You see the system is flawed in many ways. It encourages non-custodial parents to cheat the system or risk being screwed, it also does nothing for the self asteem of seperated children from a less that effluent upbringing.

I say there should be a set amount per week per child (dependant on their age) and all non-custodial parents should be forced to pay. If they don't pay the state should prop it up and those people who have short paid will one day work and they should be made to pay the state back by way of extra taxes etc.

After all the ones that are missing out now are the children. The innocent ones that are caught up in the system.
rehctub

rehctub here.
Time I think to wrap it up.

I would like your answers to the following questions.

1. Do you feel the present system is working and should be left as is?

2. Do you think child support should be scrapped al together?

3. Do you think the state should pay any short falls and persue the debt?

4. Do you think that each child should be supported with a common dollar value dependent on their age?

rehctub

Rehcteb
Sorry I missed your posts.
You seem to have balanced ideas. I do think the parent should make it up.
I do think people are reasonsible for their own children.
I do agree we can help in sad cases.
I dont think anybody should be paid not to see their kids.
I dont think people should be forced to live in a particular area if they are re married.
I do think however every possible arrangment should be made for the children to see the other parent.
Most times the full time parents look foward to weekends off from the stress of kids.
However women should not use kids as a tool
Nor men which is becoming more and more the fashion.
Dont worry keep opening doors we appreciate it.
I would never even look at a man who didnt treat me as a lady.
Part of that is good old fashioned manners. All children need to be taught manners.
Its still live and well.
Thanks for all your interesting posts.

PALEIF, "off topic" but did you see ABC, Catalist on Thursday 11 October 2007 about the cruelty against animals (sheep, etc) still going on?

Perhaps the better way to resolve the issue is that the Australian Government insist that animals transported from Australia can only be slaughtered at Australian approved slaughter houses (in the country they are to be consumed).

And while slowly we have eroded Australian shipping we should also insist that only Australian ships carry life animals from Australia and that such ships must comply with strict Australian conditions as to the transport of life animals.

Mr Gerrit
Australian shipping is erroding is because of the buricratic red tape and the union dominated shipping ports that hold the country to ransom.A 12 hour turn around for ships in asian ports 36 hours in Australia I think.

Here we have specialists for each simple little task and we have tall poppy syndrome where customs have this don't harrass me or I will go slow to make your life difficult. Well guess what! we are now seeing the results of this poor attitude with our industries, not just shipping, being out soursed overseas. Wherever you have a situation whereby union officials get bonus money while their members are on strike we will never be competetive.

As for live exports the government does'nt give a toss because they get their cut either way.
Of cause it would make sense to employ our own people to slaughter here and export in carcase form but the reallity is that it is almost impossible to find staff to do the jobs here so live export is the easy option. As for our resourses we are renound for exporting raw materials then importing value added goods such as steel and papper, while at the same time we have all these un-employed wandering the streets. In the mean time we have a social sercurity system that allows this to happen because the 'do gooders' say that it is unfair to make people work for the dole. And the sad part of all this is that we are only just starting to see the results of a poorly exicuted and addministrated welfare system of generation x. Why don't the police have the power to random drug test people wandering the streets, many work places now have this as a condition of employment.Why, because we have no balls to make a stand against these 'do gooders' that rule our world. Off topic I know but frustrating nun the less.
rehctub

Rehctub, firstly as a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” I do know what can be done but the Federal government screwed up in the waterside workers confrontation and the Court ruled in its favour. Why, because neither the lawyers or the judges understand what is constitutionally permissible. For this I pursue the creation of the “OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN”, a constitutional council, that advises the Government, the People, the Parliament and the Courts as to constitutional powers and limitations.
While the Federal Government pursued its unconstitutional WorkChoices, with the High Court concealing relevant details to pretend it was constitutionally valid, on the other hand the Framers of the Constitution made clear that waterside workers would fall under federal powers from the time of federation! As such blame the Federal Government for not knowing this!

Australian shipping have gone down over decades and it is because of the failure of the Federal Government to protect Australian jobs. That is what really is the cause of the problems!

As for live-export of animals, for slaughter, the Australian Government could simply make the condition that slaughter-houses must be under Australian supervision or no delivery! As such, they can have their own workers but be subject to supervision of an Australian official!

Drug testing of people on the street would not be appropriate unless they are involved in unlawful conduct. I have no issue with testing when I drive a motor vehicle. I was tested once, about ten years ago, and it was a zero reading!

It is the mismanagement by the Federal Government where most problems lies. For example we have John Howard making known that he pursues a referendum to change the Preamble, if he is re-elected of-course, so people will vote for him, just that the Preamble is not part of the Constitution (Section 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 (UK)is the Constitution). Check it out!

Mr Gerritt and Rectub

Thank You for you comments and yes of course we watched and were aware of the programe. There is but one way to stop this and I am afraid until others get onboard to promote it live animal exports will not only continue but mulipply as they already have.

Here is a sample web web site but it doesnt have to be these players it can be any and or many players. The more the better.
http://www.halakindmeats.com/

lyn White of AA or Animals Australia is indeed trying to do her best and a wonderful lady.
We think very highly of her.

Actually the Government DOES care about pushing live exports because they dont have the balls or common deceny to say NO to the evil operators who saturate their parties with political donations.

It would not matter if they were Australian ships the whole process is unthinkably cruel. Animals are land creatures and temperates reaching over 50 in long halls alone. Many many millions die at sea .
ITS BARBARIC.
SHAME.
WE MUST SLAUGHTER AND KEEP JOBS HERE.
Please do not apolilgise ever either one of you for brining up the barbaric sickening live animal export trade.

Rectub- Do Godders!
Yes well spoken!

Mr Gerrit I thought that taking illigal drugs was breaking the law. What if we were to impliment a system whereby everone was tested for drugs every time they entered a public building, be it centerlink, a public hospital as examples. You see much of our presious hospital time is wasted on drugies that are repeat drug offenders and at times require the assistance of up to 10 hospital personel while at the same time ladies are having miss carridges in the waiting rooms because of patient overload.

I don't do drugs, nor do I support my welfare contributions being used to fund drugs. Many drug dealers are on welfare, don't work, don't pay taxes yet enjoy a life style the envey of any hard working person. I say again, why should the workers be tested for drugs, some of them office workers at that, while our wefare recipients get paid wether they are high or not. Please don't get me wrong, there are many genuine welfare cases out there but just think how many of the rat bags would stave if we were to introduce random drug testing anywhere, anytime. rehctub

Mr Gerrit
Further to your post I would like to give you just one example of a water side worker, a freind at the time, that I saw go from a great guy, to a union rep only to have a complete break down whereby he lost his home and wife in the process.

I first met this guy as a customer of one of my shops back in the early 90's. We played golf together, espicially on rainy days, (we used to get them back then), and he would bragg to me how he got paid extra (stress pay) as he called it becasue he couldn't get to work.

Another day he was with a crew of 8 and he went to put one of the slings back onto the hook from a crane, a simple task and got shunned by his fellow work mates becasue as they said "that's not our job, we have to wait for a rigger". Several hours later a rigger turned up and picked up the sling, placed it on the hook and they were then able to return to work. For just 1 hour that was as they had sat around for about 61/2 hours waiting for this so called specialist. The whole thing got to him in the end.
I realise you don't support john howard and that is your choice. However, he now finds himself in a position whereby he may have to take over the hospitals, water etc as the labour dominated states are obviously incapable of getting it right. As a queenslander I can only speak for my state, here we have had the suncorp stadium, some 100's of millions over budget and the goodwill bridge, budgeted to cost 13.3 million yet when completed cost us 63.3 million.
Now I am the forst to admit that the howard government may not be able to have done better but if the unions get a strong hold in this country again all I can say is look-out. Rehctub

Rehctub I think you do better to read up on my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH as to try to set it all out in posts may take me years!
The WATER issue is a problem the commonwealth actually failed to act for at least for 50 years when they could and still even if they get all the powers they will not do a thing to fix it. Worse, if the Federal government gets its hands on WATER it can basically control everything. Steve Bracks (Vic) changed his mind after I wrote why WATER should not be in the hands of the Federal Government. For better explanation see my blog.

With waterside workers, they are within and always were within the fold of the Commonwealth, just that the Federal Government went the wrong way about in the waterside workers dispute with Corringan.

Howard i9ndicates to change the Preamble to recognise Aboriginals. This is a hoax and con-job as the preamble is not part of the Constitution and so Section 128 referendum cannot alter it. The same with the con-job referendum for a Republic, it cannot be done. Again see my blog for further explanation.

As for misuse of drugs. Constitutional powers prevent the Commonwealth to legislate as to certain people to be tested and others not as any law must be for all people. Not that John Howard gives a hood as he acts often unconstitutionally. He pretends to have the interest of the community at heart but his actions prove otherwise. Iraq is a clear example how it was an unconstitutional murderous invasion, and for what?

With the election he is using our tax money as his give away! And this comes back to your thread that we could provide for more money for all children in need if we didn’t waste billions of dollars on an unconstitutional invasion, other Howard give away’s, etc.

Mr Gerrit
With regards to water I must admit I am not aware of what you have stated however I have no reason to doubt you. All I know is that whatever is being done now is not working and if something is not done, and soon, we will be in dire straights.

With water being the most precious recourse in our country there are some serious issues that need to be addressed right now and I don’t care who addresses these issues.

Firstly lets look at water, or more so how it gets to our houses and what happens to it after we use it.

Articulated water delivered to QLD households is ‘A Grade’ drinking water yet we consume less than 2% with the balance used for daily household uses. This household water once used is returned to the treatment plant via sewage, treated then dumped. My shire alone, north of Brisbane dumps 9 million liters of re-treated water e-v-e-r-y day.

I suggest one of 2 options.

1. Convert the town water supply to non-portable water that has been treated to a level that is safe to use but not recommend for drinking then introduce bottled water for drinking. Bottled water being water that has been treated to ‘A Grade’ drinking standard, bottled into 20lt bottles and delivered to households on a weekly basis either free or at a ‘cost recovery’ basis. This option will stop the dumping of millions of liters per day as once re-treated it is re-piped to household for re-use. There would also be cost savings in the treatment costs that would be offset against the cost of delivering drinking water.


2. Implement option 1 and once the dam level returns to above 50% simply flush the entire system and return to ‘A Grade’ water and cease the bottled water supply until such time as the dam levels become depleted.

By implementing either of these methods there would be no need for the recycling of water therefore the debate about is it safe or unsafe would no longer be an issue.
rehctub

You stated you do not care who does it, this I view is the wrong approach. We have constitutional limitations and of the States were to encroached upon federal powers the Federal Government would be quick to stop it.

While John Howard was talking about 10 billion dollars, he wasn’t taking this from his own money and it cannot be taken from consolidated Revenue, as such it has to be from the very states that gets the money by way of special levy!
Now, why on earth should a State government hand over legislative power in return for nothing?
Since Federation the Federal Government had the legislative powers, see section 100 of the Constitution, to set limits of water allocation. Malcolm Turnbull himself made known that it didn’t do so for the last 50 years when it should have. Then for the Federal Government to blame the States is nonsense.
As I understand it if the Federal Government gets legislative powers it will sell water to US companies who then sell it at inflated prices back to us!
Nothing the Federal Government can do as to increase water supply! And again, it failed to control the over supply!

For Victoria I have recommended desalination plants in the Mallee. This is far inland away from the sea. Why? Because the salt is there on the ground, due to past clearing of trees. So, by pumping up the under ground-water and then recycle it then the water table will to some extend reduced and at the time reduce the salt level and land become more viable for farming.
As such desalination would reclaim lost farming land.
Also, by creating a desalination plant it may revitalise small towns and create work (employment) because of the work involved in the desalination plants.
Many options are possible to deal with the water shortage without needing federal intervention!