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./