|
Dads Against Discrimination Inc ABN 82 053 905 623 A CLASS ACTION| Back to Articles | Family breakdown in Australia is a national disaster The Federal Coalition Government announced minor changes to the Child Support Scheme on October 1, 1997 and indicated that the Child Support Scheme now administers to a parent population of 998,000, involving approximately 499,000 families. The Child Support Agency reports a growth of 5000 to 6000 new cases per month. The Child Support Agency deals with only 69% of family breakdowns, the other 31% reaching private agreements outside the Child Support Scheme. If 499,000 represents 69% of family breakdowns, then 224,188 additional families are involved through private arrangements, giving a total of 723,188 broken families. Child Support Agency statistics show that each broken family has approximately 1.48 children, giving 723,188 x 1.48 = 1,070,318 children living in broken families. Many people are hurting, and the extended family are often called upon for help, particularly grandparents. Often the only place the displaced parent can go is home to "Mum and Dad" who are concerned not only for their son or daughter, but also their grandchildren who have lost their sense of family security. There is a growing feeling that the loss of family can now be measured directly in poor achievement at school, unemployment, bankruptcy, domestic violence, homelessness and suicide. HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE DIRECTLY INVOLVED NOW?
The above statistics do not include immediate brothers and sisters, second family members, friends and colleagues. The number above could be easily doubled. The Family Law and Child Support Acts are contributing directly to these growing statistics. Australia needs substantial changes to these Acts as a matter of urgency. The voting public is watching the performance of the Federal Coalition Government. A CLASS ACTION The previous Labor Government under first the Hon Bob Hawke and then the Hon Paul Keating failed to act on the 163 recommendations of the 1993/94 Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Law Issues. The Liberal Party promised in February 1996 to fully address the Joint Select recommendations if they were elected to office in March 1996. The current Liberal National Coalition Government have made some administrative and non-substantial recommendations for change, but have failed to address the central issues of the "Formula," access rights, parental rights, punishment for false allegations and greater equity for all family members after family breakdown. In the absence of adequate representation by our federal politicians there is no recourse but to now take legal action against the Federal Government, the Family Court, Family Court Barristers and Solicitors, and Child Support Scheme officers who continue to make and give biased and discriminatory decisions and advice against non-custodial parents (92.2% male). This system must not be allowed to overshadow the adult lives of our children. Children need their fathers as much as they need their mothers. A CLASS ACTION - AGAINST WHOM? The Class Action must be taken against the collective injustices perpetrated by: the Federal Government for the framing, legislating and maintenance of the Family Court, the Family Law Act and the Child Support Scheme. The Federal Government which has given itself the right to tell parents how much money should be spent on children by fixing the rate of Child Support payment according to a socio-economic formula with arbitrary origins. The negligence displayed by the Federal Government through inadequate Legislative supervision of appropriate expenditure of Child Support payments collected and intended for the benefit of the children, but actually spent by the custodial parent on items not related to the children. The Federal Government for the continued blocking of natural justice through the maintenance of Section 121 of the Family Law Act (a non-disclosure provision) which prohibits the discussion of any details or the identity of anyone involved in any Family Law case, thus denying one section of community access to the "media democracy" which has become an Australian "right." the Family Court for the gender bias it displays in decisions which give custody of the children to the mother on the grounds of "primary carer" and the "best interests of the children." The Family Court Barristers and Solicitors for the out-of-court advice given to "good" fathers that they are unlikely to gain favourable custody and property settlements against "good" mothers. The Child Support Agency for biased & discriminatory decisions, advice & customer service attitudes. the Child Support Review Office for biased and discriminatory decisions, advice and customer service attitudes. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission for its failure to act in the best interests of the non-custodial parent, second spouses, subsequent children of second families, extended families and significant others. GROUNDS? The many conversations which I have had with non-custodial and custodial parents reveal a wide range of specific complaints about the Family Court and the Child Support Scheme, including both the Child Support Agency and the Child Support Review Office. The vast majority can be broadly summarised as dissatisfaction with a system which discriminates against non-custodial parents (92.2% men), forcibly removes children from the day-to-day care of the father, causing extreme emotional torment for both the children and the father, and financially penalises the often innocent male on the grounds that it is "in the best interests of the children." The vast majority of specific complaints fit into one or more of the following four general "Grounds" for a national Class Action:
The functions of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission include the following: b. To inquire into acts or practices in Australia that may be inconsistent with any rights established by these instruments; c. Where the Commission and the court consider it appropriate, to intervene in private litigation when issues of human rights arise; d. To coordinate research, educational, and other programmes for the purposes of promoting human rights; e. To report to the Federal Government on its own initiative or when requested by the Federal Government, on any action that should be taken by Australia on matters relating to human rights or to comply with Australia's obligations under these international instruments or other instruments declared by the Attorney-General to be "relevant international instruments" for the Commission's purposes; and f. In certain circumstances, to receive and conciliate individual complaints of human rights infringements. (Lawson, Edward 1990 Encyclopedia of Human Rights, Taylor & Francis). b. That formal administrative machinery needs to be established to investigate infringements of human rights and to attempt to achieve a settlement of issues of conciliation; and c. That facilities need to be established, on a systematic basis, that foster programmes of education and research and other programmes to promote human rights. (Lawson, Edward 1990 Encyclopedia of Human Rights, Taylor & Francis). COST OF CLASS ACTION? Legal advice has been sought on the concept of a class action and the responses to date indicate that the concept is worthy of further discussion and investigation. The legal firms have indicated that a "pro bono" (no win, no pay) basis would be inappropriate given the size of the probable legal argument. Both the Federal Government and the Family Court would be expected to oppose a Class Action of this type with the full weight of their resources. It would therefore be probable that a team of senior legal minds would need to be engaged to fight a class action of this type. The expense of supporting such a legal team would be considerable, probably measured in millions of dollars. Funding by Fathers for Family Equity Members: The size of the financial undertaking should be seen in the context of the people who would have an interest in a positive outcome of such an action. If there are 723,188 non-custodial parents in Australia, and they could all be contacted and encouraged to donate $10 each, there would be $7,231,880 immediately to fund the class action. If we could only get to 10% of that target group (72,318), then $100 from each would also generate $7,231,800 - a significant "fighting fund." Funding by the Federal Government: Financial assistance "is available, subject to certain eligibility criteria, in cases involving questions arising under a law of the Commonwealth which, in the opinion of the Attorney-General, are of public importance either because they raise matters in the public interest or the questions are in the nature of a test case. 4.3."Public interest" cases are those involving questions arising under a law of the Commonwealth the resolution of which by the courts is, in the opinion of the Attorney-General, of public importance. "Test cases" are those brought for the purpose of resolving an important question arising under a law of the Commonwealth that, in the opinion of the Attorney-General, affects the rights of a section of the public which is, or a group of persons who are, for the most part, socially or economically disadvantaged. " Despite the nice tone above, it is unlikely that the Federal Government would willingly fund an action that could result in a massive damages bill being awarded against the government. If each of 723,188 non-custodial parents were awarded damages of $100,000 then the bill to the Federal Government would be $72,318,800,000 or $72 Billion! The Federal Government would not want a bill of that size! Funding by Commercial Companies: The Business Review Weekly and other commercial organisations regularly identify the "Top 500" companies in Australia. The Business Review Weekly also presents feature articles about the philanthropic interests of particular commercial companies and particular wealthy business-people, sports-people and media personalities. It is possible to identify these on a state-by-state basis, and then each state could approach the people or organisations based in their state for sponsorship and donations. This activity should be co-ordinated nationally to prevent intrusive duplication with the companies involved. Large companies have been known to give large sponsorship and donations to worthy causes. What's in it for the commercial companies? The retail market is shrinking as a result of the increase in divorce rates and the financial impact of Child Support payments on non-custodial parents. Despite the best mythology presented by the Federal Government, family breakdown frequently results in family poverty for all members. The trend towards increasing divorce rates must be addressed and reversed. This Class Action would achieve those ends by making the support structures after family breakdown less attractive to those who seek divorce. Commercial companies like to present themselves with a "family conscience. " HOW DO WE MAKE IT HAPPEN? The success or otherwise of our fund-raising activities will determine the speed with which any action can be taken. It might be possible to use more limited funds from our own membership to run advertisements in the major metropolitan newspapers to attract non-custodial parents to join the Class Action. For example, if sufficient funds were raised to run say a "Quarter-Page" advertisement about the Class Action in the Sydney and Melbourne metropolitan newspapers asking for interested parties to send $100 and their individual case histories, a snowball effect could develop. The simple publication of the intended "Class Action" would create media interest and media discussion about the Family Court and Child Support Schemes. Further advertising and further networking could quickly contact a significant proportion of the non-custodial parents living throughout Australia. Once a critical mass of non-custodial parents have been identified, and sufficient funds have been collected, the engagement of legal counsel could begin in earnest. Commercial sponsors wishing to be affiliated with the cause of "greater equity for all family members after family breakdown" will be more inclined to make their intentions known through the support which they may then wish to offer. The Federal Government would know that it has a fight on its hands, and that non-custodial parents are not going to allow Section 121 and other draconian measures to deprive them of their parental rights. OUTCOMES? It is with interest that I have been following the discussions and debate of the recent Constitutional Convention on the "Australian Republic" issue. The debate concerning the content of the "Preamble" and the suggested need for a "Bill of Rights" in particular, have caught my interest. It would be nice if non-custodial parents could re-affirm the rights removed by the Family Court and the Child Support Scheme . It is hoped that a successful Class Action would
|