Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

Thanks to the member for Hume for his comments. He amongst many members of this place over the last 10 years, some who have departed, has an enormous commitment to trying to ensure that separated families are dealt with in a fairer, more equitable way which works for them and their children in these three-way relationships—and sometimes four-way and even five-way relationships. They are difficult. They are challenging. They raise issues which it takes a lot of courage to take on. I know of the member for Hume’s personal commitment to this, and I also pay tribute to the former member for Richmond, Larry Anthony, who was also very passionate about this and put an enormous amount of time and effort into it as well. And so have many people from both sides of the House. The current Opposition Whip has been a strong advocate for change.

If we look back to the late eighties, when the then Labor government introduced the current child support system, we see that it was done with the best intentions. There is no doubt about that. It was trying to ensure that more custodial parents, as they used to be referred to in those days, received reasonable support for the children that they were caring for once they had separated. And it certainly did help. But as time has moved on, as circumstances have changed, we recognise that the system has not worked in the way it ought to for children in particular and for separated parents.

Unfortunately, it is a fact of Australian life that there are numerous—and a growing number, unfortunately—of separated parenting situations. They are part of normal Australian life. What we should be doing in government is attempting to assist people to be able to bring their families up in the best possible way they can, understanding that not in all circumstances do relationships remain solid. We should not be casting any aspersions on anybody in particular with regard to whether it is right for a child to be in a particular relationship. We should accept the fact that relationships do break down, that that is an enormous strain on children and parents and that, when separated parenting is required, legislation should support them in the best way possible.

I think all of the speakers on both sides of the House have today supported the legislation and I am very grateful for that. It is very important that we have a bipartisan approach so that, moving forward, these hundreds of thousands of families have some certainty about what is going to occur in the years to come, understanding that many people remain with the child support payment system for 15, 16 and 18 years, depending on the age and number of their children. It is a very long association. We intend to improve people’s relationships with the Child Support Agency in a very fundamental way so that it is interacting with parents, so that it is not adversarial, so that it respects people’s positions, rights and the circumstances they are in, and so that it does its absolute best to help them in a difficult time.

I make no excuses on behalf of the government for ensuring that the one group fundamentally uppermost in our minds at all times in dealing with the Child Support Legislation Amendment (Reform of the Child Support Scheme—New Formula and Other Measures) Bill 2006 was in fact, and will continue to be, the children—not only children of first marriages but children full stop. The fact is that the existing system that we are about to replace certainly valued children from first marriages more highly or greatly than those from second marriages or relationships. That was unfortunate and inappropriate. That is one of the many measures that is addressed.

Many other positive measures in this bill have been outlined by speakers on both sides of the House, reflecting the circumstances that have been portrayed to them by constituents who have come to them over the years with very heartfelt circumstances. There are things that have left an indelible mark upon them in their understanding of how important it is for these changes to occur.

These changes are occurring over a three-stage period. The first have already been introduced. Obviously, that legislation has been through the House and the Senate and is now law. The next range of changes commence from 1 January 2007, and then the main formula changes commence from 1 July 2008. We have covered this territory before but, in summing up, it is worth reminding the House that the reason behind that time frame is that there has to be an enormous amount of correspondence between all parties that are involved with the Child Support Agency. There are major IT systems changes. It is critical that we train staff in the child support agencies to deal with these complex issues, and for them be able to explain the issues to the separated parents in a clear, concise and family-friendly manner so that we can assist them all.

One of the things that has come to my attention time and time again as a member of parliament—and not only as the minister responsible—is the fact that people who have disagreed with assessments that have been made want to have the opportunity to be able to have their circumstances reviewed external to the Child Support Agency. Now, for the first time, this bill makes that possible. It will give an independent third party a chance to evaluate the circumstances that are prevalent in both partners’ circumstances and try to come to a judgement that is in the best interests of that family and, in particular, the children. The changes commencing from 1 January 2007 in particular are designed to improve the procedures that are followed by parents when seeking that review.

We are introducing powers within the court to increase the information that the Child Support Registrar is allowed to access so that parents can have their circumstances heard and dealt with in the courts in a more even-handed fashion as well. This is important from a practical perspective as well as from a symbolic one. If you are a parent and you feel that the other side, the other party who you may have had some very challenging times with, is being advantaged by the system, it does not do anything to support the parents in trying to conduct their lives in the best interests of their children.

This has been a very comprehensive process. The Parkinson review has done an enormously good job. It has dealt with a lot of people around this country. It has dealt with those who have been the closest to these issues, and I pay tribute to and thank the many advocates of the mothers and the fathers, acting sometimes collectively and sometimes independently, who have put forward their views and debated these points. They have reconciled themselves to the fact that not everything that they were seeking was possible. But, in the best interests of trying to find an improved system, they have worked with the government to bring about the changes that we are about to vote on.

I thank the opposition for their constructive approach to this. I note that they are not denying a second reading to the bill. I wish to make no political points at all. This is about Australian families and Australian children and giving them the best opportunity to survive and to thrive in a world in which separated parenting is a reality. I commend the bill to the House.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Ms Plibersek’s amendment) stand part of the question.

See this speech in context