Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It has really amazed me at times, in the 10 months since I have been here, to hear the voices of some on the opposition benches. I wish that some of their constituents could hear what they say at times about those people in same-sex relationships and those people who are living in non-marital relationships. We have heard hysteria at times from those opposite—not from all of them but from some—in relation to family life, as if those on this side of the House do not live in families, do not appreciate the pressures that family life can bring, do not have children, do not pay mortgages, do not love their children, do not love their relatives and do not live in society and the community. It is extraordinary the way that they go on. We heard stuff from the member for Mackellar previously about polygamous relationships, and criticising our side, in relation to so much of our legislation, as if it is antifamily. It is nonsense that our legislation is antifamily or that this government is antifamily.

This particular piece of legislation is about family relationships; it is about veterans issues; it is about helping and encouraging people to take better care of the health of their children. So I speak in support of the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008. It is an omnibus bill. I want to speak on it for two reasons. Firstly, I want to speak on the bill because there is a large veterans community in my electorate of Blair, where RAAF Base Amberley is. It is about to become a superbase. Amberley is a place that people want to be posted to, and they often buy homes in Ipswich and, if they get posted to other places, come back to Ipswich to live after they retire. We have a big veterans community in the Ipswich area and in the Lockyer Valley and the Boonah Shire close by. Secondly, I want to speak on the bill because of my background as a family lawyer. The bill has three main elements: the maternity immunisation allowance instalment and extension of eligibility, the cessation of the partner service pension to some married but separated partners, and changes to the Child Support Scheme in relation to the formula and departures from assessment.

I want to commend the member for Dobell for his longstanding interest and service in the health sector. He has stood up for the rights of working men and women. And he has a deep, abiding interest in their long-term welfare. He spoke very well in relation to the maternity immunisation allowance issue.

Currently, the eligibility for the MIA is contingent upon the child being under two years of age and then the MIA is paid but once. The MIA is a non-income-tested, one-off payment, and it is designed to encourage parents to immunise their children. If parents receive the baby bonus, then the MIA commonly is paid when the child is 19 months old. If parents are not paid the baby bonus, they need to formally claim the MIA on or before the child’s second birthday. It is a fact that, sadly, immunisation rates for Australian children are higher when they are two years of age than when they are going to school. It is probably understandable in a sense: when you have a baby you are really more careful, and you think that children, by the time they go to school, are a little bit more robust. I think we all think that of our children.

This bill contains a budget measure to align the allowance with the National Immunisation Program. The change in this bill will ensure that the MIA is paid in two equal payments for children who meet the 18-month and the four-year immunisation requirements. Further, it will extend the eligibility for the allowance to children adopted from overseas who enter Australia before turning 16 years and who are immunised subsequent to migration to Australia. The change follows the recommendation of the 2005 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services inquiry into adoption of children from overseas. That committee recommended, at recommendation 10, that:

The Minister for Family and Community Services amend the eligibility criteria for the maternity immunisation allowance in the case of children adopted from overseas so the eligibility period is two years after the child’s entry to Australia.

I am pleased that the minister is taking heed of that recommendation and putting that in this bill.

The member for Dobell went through a number of the different diseases which the National Immunisation Program recommends that children should be vaccinated against. There is a need for vaccination for four-year-olds. There is a need for vaccination in relation to whooping cough, measles, mumps, german measles, polio and the like. It is important for parents to vaccinate their children. It is something that every dutiful parent should take notice of in the circumstances.

I have had a lot of discussions with the minister on the issue of partner changes in relation to Veterans’ Affairs. The situation is that from 1 January 2009 any spouse of a veteran who has been separated from that veteran for 12 months or more will cease to be eligible for the partner service pension. Eligibility will also cease if the veteran has entered or enters a marriage-like relationship with another person. It is a fact that people separate and move on. This measure does not affect partners who are over age pension age unless the partner enters into a marriage-like relationship or divorce. That is the current policy. The measure will not apply to a spouse who is separated from a veteran simply because of illness. That is a fact for a lot of people who are married to veterans. A spouse of a veteran who has separated because of illness remains a partner of that veteran even if, say, the veteran is in a nursing home. That is the case. They will not be disadvantaged by this measure.

The minister informs me that the Department of Veterans’ Affairs is writing to each of those separated spouses who might be affected by this measure to advise of the change and provide assistance in seeking alternative income support arrangements for those who require it. My understanding is also that a special team in the department has been established to ensure individuals have their circumstances properly considered and are fully informed of any options which are available to them in respect of income support. Spouses who lose eligibility for a partner service pension under the measure contained in this bill may be eligible for an income support payment paid by Centrelink. These payments include Newstart allowance, widow allowance and disability support pension. It is interesting to note that the disability support pension is paid at the same rate as the partner service pension. I understand also that special teams have been formed to help in the transition of these arrangements to Centrelink.

It must be noted that, under the age pension situation for a partner of a veteran, it is estimated that there will be around 580 partners of veterans under age pension age. This number includes spouses of veterans who may be assessed as separated due to illness and therefore will not be affected by this measure. Thirty-four per cent of the 580 partners are now in receipt of less than the maximum rate of partner service pension, as they have other income and/or assessable assets. For those people over age pension age, it is important to note that it is estimated that only around 590 separated partners will be over the age pension age, and they will not be affected by this measure on 1 January 2009. The age pension and the partner service pension are paid at the same rate, so these 590 partners will continue to receive their pension paid by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. So you can see that there will be very few people affected in the circumstances—and a lot of alarmism is being preached by those opposite.

The third element of this bill deals with child support reform. There are a series of what have been described as minor changes in relation to the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988. It is important to think about child support because Australia has been a leading light throughout the world when it comes to child support. It is not commonly known that, at common law, a parent owed no duty to provide financial support for a child that was enforceable by litigation. Statute has long intervened in the circumstances to provide civil liability for financial support of children by parents enforceable by court action. The Family Law Act, at section 66C, establishes a legal duty to maintain a child and creates the legal obligation to pay child maintenance. A court exercising jurisdiction under that act, namely the Family Court or the Federal Magistrates Court, is constrained by section 66E of the Family Law Act from making a child maintenance order if an application can properly be made for an administrative assessment of child support under the Child Support (Assessment) Act.

The principal object of the Child Support (Assessment) Act is to ensure children receive a proper level of financial support from their parents. The assessment act therefore creates and quantifies that liability and the subsequent debt but does not create the debt. It does not determine any question about legal rights or obligations in the circumstances, but it may operate to create future obligations. Though an application under the Child Support (Assessment) Act creates obligations, it is the case that both parents should contribute financially to their children, and they should do so to the extent of their respective abilities, taking into consideration their needs. It is the case that, if a person is unhappy with an administrative assessment of child support, they can apply for a review, or the Child Support Registrar can seek a review of that decision, to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. In each case it is looked at to see all the facts before it, and a full and frank disclosure must be made by all the parties in the circumstances.

The SSAT is a very important legal process. The whole business of making sure that people pay child support is a legal process that can be quite cumbersome and costly for people. An appeal can be made from the SSAT on questions of law by way of an application to the Federal Magistrates Court under section 110B of the registration and collection act. That is why it is important for the SSAT to have the body of precedent that has been created and for there to be nonidentification of parties but authorisation for case law to be developed so people can actually see the kind of relevant decisions in case law precedent which will help them to avoid going to the SSAT in those circumstances. That is what this bill does in one of the aspects of the child support amendment. Child support amendments are important, and we have seen a remarkable unanimity between both sides of politics when it comes to seeking child support amendments. In fact, we have seen a big change from 1 July this year. Those changes built on the recommendation of the 2005 independent Ministerial Task Force on Child Support, which was established as a result of the House of Representatives report Every picture tells a story.

Stage 3 of child support reform came on 1 July this year. As a result of stage 3, there has been an analysis undertaken by the Australian government of the 691,000 cases—so you can see that child support affects a lot of Australians and their families. About 37 per cent of payees and about 51 per cent of payers have had net increases in household income as a result of the reforms. About 49 per cent of the payees and 33 per cent of the payers have had net reductions—that is, they have paid less overall. About 13 per cent of payees and 16 per cent of payers have had no change in their child support or their family tax benefit as a result of the reforms. Most of the people who have received changes of assessment in child support have had an adjustment of sometimes less than $10 a week and sometimes up to about $20 a week.

It is important that the government back up these changes with tough enforcement measures—and they came into operation on 1 July this year—to make sure that parents who have child support obligations pay their full amount of child support and that they do so in a timely way. It is important that we collect more child support because that puts less pressure on the Australian taxpayer, and it is important that parents who have the children fulfil their responsibilities not just financially but in a parental way as well. In my work as a family lawyer it never ceased to amaze me how often people would say that they were paying too much child support when the amount they were paying was far less than the Australian Institute of Family Studies said should be paid to meet the real cost of maintaining children.

The reforms we are talking about here will make changes to calculations of the percentage of care that will reflect agreements that are made by way of a consent order or child support agreement and will reflect the reality of people’s experience. The second part of the child support changes permits the publication of reasons for decisions by the SSAT, and that is extremely important, as I have said. The SSAT is required to provide reasons for its decision to parties seeking reviews and of course to the registrar. The amendments provide that the SSAT will not be prevented from communicating its reasons to authorised persons or from publishing them. That is important. It is also important that people’s privacy be maintained, and this bill takes that into consideration—as well as witnesses, who do not want to be dragged into the process and have their names plastered around for public identification and comment.

The third aspect is an amendment that will permit either parent to apply for a departure order in circumstances where the real cost of caring for children should be taken into consideration. Under section 117(2) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act, if it is just and equitable and otherwise proper, parents can have regard to making applications for what is commonly called a departure order. The high cost of maintaining children was often taken into consideration but only for one of the parties. The child support reforms mean that not just the carer parent but the other parent can have the reality of the care of the children taken into consideration. So that is an important measure in all of the circumstances. It is a just measure.

The final thing that I want to say is that the government is extending the departure prohibition orders to overseas maintenance liabilities. We have entered into foreign treaties, we have signed treaties in relation to overseas child maintenance and the Hague convention on child abduction, but it is important that we in this country fulfil our obligations and enforce child support no matter where it is assessed—in our country or overseas. I commend the bill to the House. (Time expired)

See this speech in context