Insurgent Ink

Treasurer Costello ("Lean is mean in tax terms", March 27) apparently sees his role in purely ideological terms as minimising government expenditure and cutting taxes. Yet survey after survey show the public prefers improved public services, in seriously deprived areas, over tax cuts. The Treasurer's obsession with holding down spending is blind to the glaring needs of public hospitals, the universities (dependent on full-fee-paying foreign students), the deficiencies in the public schools while funds have been poured into wealthy private schools, the huge shortfall in places in not-for-profit child care, the expanding needs in environmental repair as revealed in the ACF-NFF report now five years old, the need for rebuilding the rail system both to play our part in reducing global warming and to prepare us for the not-sodistant post-oil era, and the need for additional funding for our two geat public institutions--the CSIRO and the ABC.

With the exception of the latter two, which would probably be happy to receive another $100 million each, the other areas mentioned would need at least an additional $1 billion each. The total of around $6.2 billion is less than the Government's expected surplus. And it would still result in the Australian Government's spending as a percentage of GDP of 3.5% (accounting for $31 billion) less than when they came to Office--using Mr Costello's own figures.

In a rich society where most families can meet their normal day-to-day personal needs their unmet needs are those which only government can meet. These needs increase as society becomes richer and more complex. And as society gets richer the Government's capacity to respond to these needs increases. Good government requires leadership. Costello's article shows not an iota of leadership needed for the 21st century. The above suggested additional allocations would only make a start on dealing with these serious societal problems, and to use Costello's words,"consistent with the standards....that our public is justly entitled to receive"

Harold Levien

Dover Heights, NSW 2030

The Attorney-General, Phillip Ruddock, has tabled a new Family Law amendment bill in Parliament. It is being touted by the Attorney-General as helping to change the culture of family law. In fact, there will be no change. It is simply an exercise in word- play without any real changes. The words "consideration of equal time" are now proposed to be added to the Family Law Act. A Family Court judge will at least have to consider if both parents can have equal contact with their kids after separation. It is noted that the Labor Government made similar changes to the Family Law Act in 1995. The Family Court then subsequently chose to interpret the legislation in such a way as to make these changes ineffective. The status quo stayed the same with less than two (2) per cent of court orders continuing to be made for equal time shared parenting.

Using words like "equal time" is certainly a good start. However when linked to the word "consideration", this change effectively means nothing has changed. The desired outcome of any change to family law amendments is the introduction of a rebuttable presumption of equal time, shared parenting (i.e. unless desired otherwise by the parents). Our politicians have not been game enough to include this outcome in the current round of changes. The word "reasonable" has also been added in front of the often mis-used phrase "apprehension of family violence". This is just also another exercise in word-play. The family violence issue has long been used as an inappropriate tool to gain a financial advantage in the Family Court. Unless family violence is proven and not merely alleged, then this mis-use will continue to occur. Until these fundamental changes are made to our legislation nothing changes.

John Flanagan
Deputy Registered Officer, Non-Custodial Parents Party