Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is not my intention to go line by line through what is a very technical bill. However, there are some broad remarks I wish to make in relation to the Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment (Child Support Reform Consolidation and Other Measures) Bill 2007. The issue of child support is one which affects every member of parliament. In my electorate of Banks there are 2,465 persons who are liable to pay child support, 2,488 persons who are eligible to receive child support and a total of 4,037 children for whom support should be paid.

When I first entered this place 17 years ago as a local member, the payment of child support was not an issue that my office dealt with on a regular basis. Indeed, the legislation was not in place then. However, since the legislation has been enacted, child support is constantly being dealt with in my office—and, I am sure, in every member’s office. That is why the recent committee report into child support and custody, which I will come to later, came about. It is an issue that the parliament has rightly confronted, legislated for and looked to improve and amend so as to give much deserved attention to community concerns.

I want to focus on the broad context of the bill and the impact it will have on families. There is no doubt that the issue of child support causes the most incredible heartache to parents and to children. This occurs following, or as a part of, a relationship breakdown. In itself, the relationship breakdown causes significant distress to all the parties involved, and the issue of child support only multiplies the effect. Our constituents are usually in a state of grieving. As a local member I acknowledge that it is an extremely difficult issue to deal with in an equitable and fair manner. When they arrive at my office to discuss a child support matter, I know that it will be emotional and almost impossible to resolve.

The original bill, the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 2004, was intended to create a new system for the assessment of child support payments. In the past, parents were quite reasonably concerned about the fact that the previous formula was based on percentages and that those percentages did not always relate to the actual cost of raising a child. The new system is based on an income share approach.

We must acknowledge that this bill does little for low-income earners. The member for Jagajaga has moved a second reading amendment to that effect and I fully support that amendment. Too often this government proposes legislation that gives little consideration to the impact on those earning not even middle-level incomes. Further, some primary caregivers—usually, but not always, mothers—will actually have their payments reduced under this new bill. It is not always possible to fully compensate for the cost of raising children when the children are living in two separate homes—that of the primary caregiver and that of the access parent. Both the primary caregiver and the access parent incur real costs in raising their children.

I note the concerns regarding proposed clause 64 of schedule 1 that were raised by the Law Council of Australia in their submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs. Their argument is that this clause leaves the determination of which documents are relevant and which documents should be given to the court in the hands of the Social Security Administration Tribunal. The Law Council believe that the court should be entitled to review all documents to determine which are relevant in a decision on a matter before it.

No legislation, however, can remove the impact of those who act in bad faith. As legislators our powers are limited in this regard. In reflecting on the remarks of my colleagues during the debate on the original bill, I was struck by the note of caution in their words. We might have an acceptable formula to establish the costs of raising a child; however, no formula can determine the cost of the grief and the sense of injustice that many—indeed, most—parents suffer while undergoing this process. With the best will in the world we cannot legislate that away, unfortunately.

I am reminded of a man who visited my office many years ago to discuss how unfair it was that he be expected to pay child support for his child. He was working in a reasonably well-paid job at the time. He announced to me that he intended changing jobs and deliberately taking a lower paying job so that his child support payments would be reduced. Sadly, I believe that is not an uncommon practice amongst some members of the community. It is a wrong practice, but it is out there. There is no way that we as a parliament can legislate around bad faith. We can, however, ensure that the system in place is the most equitable it can be. As members of parliament there are ways we can work through issues which seem impossible. We can make a difference and we can offer the opportunity for members of the community to articulate their concerns. We can work with the community and try to understand their concerns, even if we ourselves have not experienced similar circumstances.

Constituents often ask what we do while we are in Canberra apart from debating legislation before the parliament. One of the most critical functions of a member of parliament is his or her participation in the committee process. This is a little understood yet vital part of the parliamentarian’s day-to-day work. It is through the committee process that vital issues are identified and examined and the public are able to give input directly into the parliamentary process. Members of the public are able to provide written submissions and may then be invited to speak directly to committee members. This is true democracy in action. It is fundamental to the parliamentary process and to how we deal with important community issues.

The reason I raise this matter is that the heart of the bill we are dealing with today lies in a committee report. That report, Every picture tells a story: report on the inquiry into child custody arrangements in the event of family separation, was produced by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs. It was published in 2003 and made a number of recommendations about child custody and child support. The fundamental premise of that report, as stated in the terms of reference, was:

(a)

given that the best interests of the child are the paramount consideration ...

This report involved thousands of hours of work and took as its operating premise that the best interests of the child are the paramount consideration. This is how parliamentarians can deal with incredibly difficult and emotive issues, this is how we work with and on behalf of the community and this is how we consider and work through those matters which are not black and white and involve many shades of grey. In her foreword to the report, the chair, the member for Riverina, said :

One of the highlights of committee work for parliamentarians is the people we meet. During this inquiry our greatest delight was hearing from the nine children and five young adults at our final meeting of the inquiry. These children and young adults were a microcosm of what this inquiry was all about.

That report involved six months of work by not only the committee members but also the committee staff. Over 2,000 people contributed to the inquiry through submissions, presenting evidence at hearings and participating in committee visits to various family and mediation centres.

This process is a core role of the parliament. I do know that the members of the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs were dedicated and committed to an outcome that would ensure the rights of the children were the overriding factor in their considerations. The ultimate outcome of this report was a series of recommendations that formed the basis for the act that this bill is amending. As always, not everyone can be entirely satisfied with the outcomes, but no-one can be in any doubt as to the effort put into trying to ensure that the outcome was the best for the children involved. Most importantly, the result was bipartisan. The committee chair noted in her foreword that initially there had been divergent views. She concluded:

... I have never felt so proud of a group of members of parliament who put political differences aside and worked together to ensure a united outcome.

As a current member of several committees and a participant in the presentation of many reports to the parliament, it seems to me that this is an achievement we may all be proud of. It is the bipartisan approach to resolving important public matters that makes the committee process so valuable. I am a great advocate of the committee process and I am concerned that the significance and impact of that process is being watered down. I note with some disquiet that this bill was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs on 29 March 2007 with a reporting date of 8 May 2007. There was only one day of public hearings actually scheduled. Given that we are debating the bill today, it gives literally no time at all for those of us with an interest to consider the committee’s report.

I have served on a number of committees in the 17 years I have been in this place. I believe in the committee process and that the executive should pay respect to the parliament. Our committees should be functioning properly. The member for Chifley noted in a speech in this House on the tabling of a report from the Standing Committee on Procedure on 12 December 2005:

If we want to continue to exist as an institution, if we want the parliament and parliamentarians to be held in higher esteem by the public, one of the key ways we will succeed is through having a very vibrant and strong committee system.

I think that is true. I think it is also true that one of the reasons we succeed and do as well as we have is that we also have a number of dedicated and professional public servants who advise the government and the executive of the day. Indeed, in the six years we were in government in the time that I have been here in parliament I was always impressed with the quality of independent advice that was provided by the Public Service to each of the ministers that I had to deal with. I have no doubt that that has not changed over the years and that that professional advice is still there in the public sector. We as a parliament need to recognise that. We need to nurture it and we need to encourage that independent debate because, quite frankly, if the politicians were half as good as the public servants and the public servants who serve on the committees then we would be a lot better off. The problem that we have had in the past at times is that some of the politicians tend to think that they are a little bit better than they are and everyone else has got to clean up the damage that they do—they do not intentionally do it—with the egos that they have. I commend the amending bill before the House to the parliament. I also commend the amendment moved by the shadow minister for families and community services, the member for Jagajaga, to the House.

See this speech in context