Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

There are a number of issues contained in the bill. One of the issues that I want to deal with is the more flexible arrangements and the better legal protection. I questioned this when it was brought before the government backbench policy committee because it seemed at odds with the normal operations of the Commonwealth of Australia that we would require couples to have received legal advice before certain other things happened. That seemed a bit odd to me. But when I inquired, I was satisfied that it was in the interests of both parents to have taken legal advice. The problem is that the courts are generally less likely to vary an agreement, if there is an appeal, where legal advice has been obtained by both parents when compared to cases where only one of the parents received legal advice. So by incorporating this requirement in the bill, we are actually protecting both parents against potential adverse outcomes later on. Parents will only be required to have received legal advice if the agreement is less than the current child support assessment. What finally convinced me to support this particular measure is that parents will have access to free or low-cost legal advice through the duty lawyers at the Family Court and through community legal centres. This condition is not onerous because either free or low-cost legal advice will be available.

The process and rules for determinations of orders made under the Child Support (Assessment) Act to depart from the administrative assessment provisions where some parents reside a fairly significant geographical distance apart is a matter which all of us have had a lot of constituent contact about. The formula allowance for costs enabling contact with a child may be inadequate as the costs of travel for the children to and from their non-resident parent’s home, or for the parent to travel to see the child, can be significant. In this bill, we are allowing for that; this justifies an increased allowance beyond the allowance made in the formula for regular care. Parents in this situation will certainly welcome the fact that the government has recognised the issue.

I was very happy to see that schedule 4 of that bill provides for other reforms that commence on 1 January 2007. In particular, the relationship between the courts and the new Child Support Scheme will be simplified, particularly in relation to percentage. Parents will have better access to court enforcement of child support debts—which is very welcome—and courts will have increased powers to seek information and evidence in those cases and to make interim arrangements for child support cases generally. That is a good outcome. Certainly those parents who have unpaid child support will welcome this particular arrangement.

I am sorry, as is the government, that all of these amendments cannot be enacted more quickly, but it was just not possible. When we saw that major amendments could not be started until 1 July 2008, we were really disappointed, but there are very good reasons. It is just something that cannot be avoided. Parents who are in the child support system will certainly look forward to the new child support formula, the more flexible arrangements, the better legal protection, the income definitions for certain tax-free amounts, the residential parent keeping their family tax benefit, the minimum child support payments and being able to use income from second jobs and overtime to help re-establish themselves during the first three years. They will welcome the introduction of these measures, along with the simplified process to suspend child support payments and the appeal process to the SSAT, which are long overdue. There is a whole raft of changes. Talking to my constituents in Townsville I know that they see this as a very welcome piece of legislation. They do not see it, as the Labor Party does, as overly complex in nature. They will welcome it and I certainly strongly support it.

See this speech in context