Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill is the next legislative stage in the government’s 2006 reforms to the child support system. The Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment (Child Support Reform Consolidation and Other Measures) Bill 2007 contains a significant number of technical and consequential amendments following from the original two pieces of child support reform legislation considered by the parliament last year. Labor supported these previous child support reform bills in the parliament, after expressing our reservations that the government had failed to provide protection for low-income families, who may lose income as a result of the changes to the scheme. Labor will support the legislation before us today. However, we remain concerned about protection for low-income families, which has not to date been adequately resolved. I move:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House expresses its serious concern that the Government’s child support reforms do not provide adequate protection against income reductions for low income households raising children”.

The bill also incorporates relevant amendments relocated from the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 2004, which Labor was intending to support. We note that the government is set to withdraw that bill from the Notice Paper and we are happy for that to occur. This amendment bill includes a range of non child support changes to various pensions and family payments, including the payment of the baby bonus in instalments to mothers aged under 18 years and the extension of the pension assets test, from 12 months to 24 months, following the sale of the principal home. Labor welcomes both of these initiatives. Not only are they good policy; they are also suggestions that we put forward in the first place. If the government continues to run out of fresh ideas, we are obviously keen to help.

The Child Support Scheme was, as I am sure everyone is aware, set up in 1988 by the Hawke Labor government, and it has become an international model and the basis of a similar scheme established in the United Kingdom. I do, however, acknowledge the genuine concerns about the scheme, including the fairness of the scheme, the assessment formula and, in particular, compliance. I reiterate that Labor acknowledges the need for reform of our child support system. The view we take to the reform challenge, however, is that fundamentally the interests and wellbeing of children must come first and that, as far as possible, child support policies should serve to support the child in secure and in economically acceptable conditions.

When it comes to child support, the reform process has been lengthy. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs report Every picture tells a story dealt with child support and other family separation issues and made 29 bipartisan recommendations. Among its recommendations was the establishment of a ministerial task force to evaluate the Child Support Scheme, including establishing the costs of children’s upbringing after parental separation, recognising the different income levels of households and reflecting the costs for both parents of maintaining meaningful contact with their children.

The May 2005 report of the Ministerial Taskforce on Child Support, otherwise known as the Parkinson report, was the first systematic evaluation of child support arrangements. It recommended a new formula for child support assessment based on evidence of the actual costs of raising children, the shared parental responsibility for those costs and recognition of each parent’s level of care. The report examined the scheme, using sound principles, and it was generally well received. Labor believes that the report provides a constructive basis for moving forward on child support reform.

Last year the parliament passed two bills which implemented this new Child Support Scheme, including a new payment formula. While not all the recommendations of the Parkinson report were adopted and the new scheme was not entirely to our satisfaction, Labor did support those bills. As I said, today’s bill makes further amendments to the new Child Support Scheme. It is a lengthy bill, with 12 schedules and 178 pages, so I am not going to be able to cover all the amendments. But I do want to touch on, in particular, a number of issues which were raised in evidence given just last week at the Senate inquiry into this bill. The first issue is that these proposed amendments have not raised many new concerns—many of the concerns raised at the Senate inquiry were also raised when the original bill was debated. The second issue, which is perhaps related to the first, is that the new Child Support Scheme is still contentious and many of the previous concerns, especially with regard to the impact of the new regime, have not been fully addressed.

The Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the agency responsible for child support policy, told the Senate inquiry that the implementation of the new regime is not progressing as smoothly as should be expected. The promised stakeholder reference group has met only once this year and there is still a lack of detailed information on the impact on families of the new formula and the new arrangements. Giving evidence at the recent Senate inquiry into the bill, Jaqueline Taylor, from the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children, said:

… calculating the financial impact on single mother families post July next year has actually been an incredibly difficult thing to do because there is nothing available to help us with that. There has been no modelling done by the government to actually calculate the impact that these changes will have on sole parent families and we cannot forget that this is also in conjunction with Welfare to Work and the loss of income from that.

So I ask the government to make this issue a priority and do the necessary research to look at the impacts of the changes that have been enacted. We believe that the government has a responsibility to make sure that the wellbeing of children is not compromised by the combined impact of these policy changes, especially the Welfare to Work changes. We acknowledge the concerns of many resident parents that they will receive lower child support payments under the new formula.

At the request of the ministerial task force, NATSEM modelled some of the impacts of the new formula. That modelling showed resident parents on annual incomes of $26,000 or less will incur the biggest reductions in child support payments. For example, where the non-resident parent earns $78,000, a resident parent with an income of $26,000 will be $50 a week worse off. That is certainly a lot of money for a parent earning $26,000 a year. These families are already amongst the most economically marginalised in the country. Ninety-one per cent of these families, according to the Child Support Agency’s own data, are headed by mothers. Only four per cent of these families have incomes over $50,000 a year and 75 per cent raise their children on incomes below $20,000. We know that supporting parents who are getting by without paid work or are managing on low part-time wages are frequently surviving on incomes well below the poverty line. So more account certainly needs to be taken of these issues, and we look forward to the research being done by the department.

It is also important that we look at these changes in the context of not only the new system that has been put in place but also the recent Welfare to Work changes that are having a big impact on many of these families. On the one hand, we have family law and child support law encouraging shared parenting and an acknowledgement that between 35 per cent and 65 per cent of care is considered to be shared. On the other hand, under the income support policies of this government’s Welfare to Work changes only one parent can be given principal carer status, and the important concessions in terms of activity requirements can leave the other parent and the children exceptionally vulnerable. I would like to quote Ms Taylor from the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children again. She said this about a case presented by the council to the Senate inquiry:

There is one in particular where a single mum in country Victoria has shared care of her toddler child, a very young child. She does not have principal carer status because her partner bullied her into making sure he got it. Centrelink assigned it to him. They have within the 10 per cent range of the fifty-fifty, so Centrelink have made their decision against her in favour of him. So she is what is known as a generic job seeker where she is on Newstart with child rate but has full-time obligations to look for work and to do anything that the Job Network requires of her to accept full-time employment. She has none of the protections that you get with principal carer status such as part-time work, no suitable child care available, the 60-minute travel rule—hers is 90 minutes. She has no access to a pensioner concession card, so she is in a seriously disadvantaged situation.

Labor is closely monitoring the impact of the intersection of the Welfare to Work laws, the importance of principal carer status, the promotion of shared care under family law and these child support changes to make sure that parents with largely shared caring responsibility are not disadvantaged.

I wish to turn to some other provisions in the bill. As far as the administrative review provisions are concerned, the bill makes technical changes to the process of administrative and judicial review of decisions in child support cases by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal—the SSAT—or by the courts. One of these changes concerns ‘out of time’ applications to the SSAT for a review of a child support decision. Currently the executive director of the SSAT has 60 days to make a decision about allowing such an application, and if the decision is not taken in the time frame the application is deemed to have been refused. This deeming provision will be removed by this bill and, according to the explanatory memorandum, the mechanism for ensuring timeliness in decision making will be left to ‘other mechanisms, such as the SSAT’s reporting requirements’. Clearly, the inflexibility of the deeming provisions could cause problems. However, relying on vague mechanisms such as ‘reporting requirements’ does not necessarily adequately address the issue of delays. The Law Council of Australia, in its submission to the Senate inquiry into the bill, expressed concern over item 64 of the bill’s schedule 1. This provision gives the SSAT the power to make a determination about which documents are relevant to the review of its decision by the court conducting that review. The Law Council is ‘concerned about the appropriateness of this amendment’ and believes it is preferable that the court be entitled to review all documents to determine which are relevant in a decision on the matter before it.

The bill also makes amendments to clarify situations when a court makes orders for the repayment of child support where payments have been made by a person who is not the parent of the child. Under these provisions a mere suspicion on the part of either parent that the payer was not the parent of the child is a factor relevant for the court to consider in making an order on possible repayment, even when this suspicion or knowledge falls short of a reasonable doubt about parentage. Another proposed section goes to the grounds for departure from the formula in relation to stepchildren. The new regime allows for the child support formula to be departed from where the family cares for a stepchild. Any consideration of the appropriateness of a departure in these circumstances requires consideration of the effects of such an order on the parents, the child support children and any other persons that the parents have a duty to support. However, currently the effect on a stepchild is not considered. The amendments will include consideration of the effect on the stepchild.

Schedule 5 deals with changes to the maintenance income test provisions in the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999. These amendments will clarify the definitions of ‘amount received’ and ‘amount payable’ in the child support formula. They will also clarify that maintenance income received by a payee for one or more children will reduce the payee’s amount of family tax benefit part A above the base rate for those children only.

Currently ongoing child support can only be collected from employers if the payer is a wage or salary earner or they receive a Centrelink payment. This amendment in the bill today will broaden the agency’s power to issue notices requiring the deduction of child support and the forwarding of that deduction to the Child Support Agency to include cases where the payer is under contract for service arrangements that are, effectively, substituting for wages. This change effectively extends the reach of the ongoing collection system to independent contractors who are employees. Labor supports this change. Other aspects of the family payment system are also amended by the bill but, given the time available, I just want to indicate our support for those.

Another significant change in this bill, unrelated to child support, is to require that the baby bonus be paid in 13 instalments to parents under the age of 18. There is an unfortunate tendency for some to portray young mums in a negative fashion. I certainly do not support that sort of reporting. However, it has been noticed among some welfare groups and social workers that there have been disturbing occurrences of young mothers being abused and exploited over their baby bonus payments. Young women are in a position of special vulnerability when it comes to these issues. Some domestic violence services have reported levels of abuse rising sharply around the time the bonus is paid. Unfortunately, it is true that women are handing over the money just to get rid of a violent partner. There are far too many stories of young mothers being exploited for their baby bonus money. Governments have a responsibility to make sure that efforts to help families at a critical time are not misdirected by desperate or selfish people to have children they neither want nor care for.

On this basis we support the government’s changes to fortnightly payments for young mothers—something we have been pressing for. We also support the common sense change in the name for the maternity payment to be officially known by what we all call it—the baby bonus. All family payments will now also be conditional on the registration of the birth. Some people might find this amendment surprising but such a change will be helpful.

In their submission to the Senate inquiry, the Australian Bureau of Statistics said that the registration requirement would improve the accuracy of Australia’s demographic statistical collections. They said:

Births to mothers in their 30s are more likely to be registered promptly whereas births to younger mothers aged under 24 years were likely to be registered later. It is expected that the proposed requirement to have all births registered before applying for the baby bonus may result in a change in parents’ behaviour.

We hope that the change will be positive and that the tendency for late registration of births among those from very disadvantaged backgrounds will be reduced.

Of all births registered in Australia in 2005, 22 per cent of Indigenous births occurred in 2004 or earlier. So there is evidence in the Indigenous community of the need for this change. For exnuptial births, where paternity was not acknowledged or where a mother is not married and the father’s details are not on the birth certificate, over 23 per cent of births registered in 2005 were for babies born in 2004 or earlier. This new requirement must be implemented in such a way that those with particular vulnerabilities are not disadvantaged. We do not want them to be missing out on any payments and I hope that those responsible will make sure that the parents who are vulnerable know the full implications of this change.

The other Labor proposal that the government is adopting in this bill is an amendment to the Social Security Act and the Veterans’ Entitlements Act to extend the pension assets test exemption period, from 12 months to 24 months, following the sale of the principal home. Labor proposed an amendment to the Social Security Act in 2006 along similar lines to support pensioners who were unable to have their new home built during the 12-month period due to delays caused by the skills shortage. The 12-month rule was particularly affecting pensioners trying to build a new home and being delayed by the serious skills crisis that, frankly, is a responsibility of this government.

Under the current arrangements, a person has 12 months to sell their existing home and construct a new home before the proceeds of the sale of their existing home become an assessable asset. Because of the huge skills shortage and therefore the delay in building completion dates, a number of pensioners have been unable to get their home completed within the 12-month time frame. Stories of people waiting for tradespeople to turn up are very well known to everyone. Labor was concerned about the impact on pensioners of the delays that forced them to be caught up in these assets test rules. It now appears that the government has caught up, and I am pleased to see this change in this bill.

The changes to the remote area allowance are also welcome. The remote area allowance is a payment for income support recipients who receive no or little benefit from the income zone tax offset through the tax system. It is income- and asset-test free and paid at single and couple rates, with an additional rate for each dependent child. The child support reforms that take effect from July 2008 introduce the concept of a ‘regular care child’. That is a child who is cared for by a parent for at least 14 per cent and less than 35 per cent of the time. The bill provides for the rate of remote area allowance to be increased by an additional allowance for each regular care child in a family in addition to each FTB child. So it does provide extra support to families, and it is welcomed by Labor.

We also support the changes to allow family tax benefits to continue to be paid to members of the Australian Defence Force and members of the Australian Federal Police International Deployment Group who are deployed overseas. Normally FTB is only payable at the full rate to people temporarily overseas for up to 13 weeks. Discretion to extend that period exists where certain prescribed events prevent or delay their return. Presently, ADF and AFP personnel on overseas deployment are not covered adequately by this discretion. This bill makes amendments to rectify that deficiency.

So, as I have indicated, Labor supports this lengthy amendment bill. However, I do want to reiterate our serious and ongoing concerns with the impact of the new Child Support Scheme on low-income families.

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Throsby.

Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The bill before us for debate today—the Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment (Child Support Reform Consolidation and Other Measures) Bill 2007follows two substantial pieces of legislation that were debated last year. Those bills arose in response to the bipartisan recommendations of the original report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, Every picture tells a story. I was pleased to be a member of that committee, which worked very hard to try and institute some very fundamental changes both to family law and to the Child Support Scheme and the formula in particular. It was left to the committee chaired by Professor Parkinson to come up with a range of detailed recommendations that go to the heart of the Child Support Scheme.

The government announced major changes to the scheme in February last year, and, as I say, today is part of the ongoing process of trying to give effect to the recommendations of both the House of Representatives committee and the Parkinson task force.

The bill before us today contains a number of significant technical and consequential amendments that flow from the original legislation. It also incorporates relevant amendments relocated from the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 2004. The shadow minister has spoken at length on a number of the proposals contained in this bill and the proposed changes. I do not intend to elaborate on those in any greater detail, because I want to focus my remarks specifically on matters relating to child support.

As the shadow minister, the member for Jagajaga, outlined to the House, the introduction of the child support system back in 1988 was a very important and innovative measure introduced by the Hawke Labor government. It was important at that time because it aimed to strike a fair balance between public and private forms of support for children where marriages had broken down, and to alleviate the poverty that we all know exists in sole parent families, particularly those struggling families with mum at the head of the family unit. We all know that sole parent families raising children are likely to be very much at the bottom of the income scale and at the bottom of the scale in terms of wellbeing and living standards.

So we on this side of the chamber have always had a view that any child support policy must put the interests of children first, must aim to reduce child poverty and must operate in a way that encourages both parents, post separation, to continue to contribute to their children’s wellbeing. It must encourage both parents to maintain ongoing roles in their children’s lives. We, as members of parliament, know that hitherto that often has not been the case. So I do, in general terms, welcome many of the long-overdue changes that will come with the introduction of the staged changes to the system and to the formula in particular. But, as the member for Jagajaga made clear, our support for the package overall continues to be conditional on improved protection against income reductions for low-income households raising children. I will return to that point a little later.

I think it was regrettable that, as members of this House, we were not in a position to debate the changes to the Child Support Scheme and the formula as a total package. If we had been able to, it would have been easier for all of us to assess the winners and the losers and to take into account the equity considerations of justice and fairness that have to be part of the eventual outcomes. As we know, these changes are coming in three tranches. Today we are debating some of those changes, but the final package of reforms will only come into existence in July next year.

You cannot argue against the fact that the existing formula has been the cause of a great deal of angst in the community. Research undertaken by the Australian Institute of Family Studies found that more than 60 per cent of non-resident fathers and 45 per cent of resident mothers think the system is not working well. This was substantially confirmed in the evidence that came before us in the inquiry that led to the very important, ground-breaking report, Every picture tells a story. As I and all MPs know, many constituents who have come to see us have raised concerns about the application of a formula that they perceived to encompass many anomalies and that they believed needed to be rectified. So the changes that we have already seen are generally welcomed and supported. I want to refer to some of these because they are matters that have been the cause of complaint to me as the member for Throsby.

From July 2006, when the first major reforms came into being, we recognised non-resident parents on income support who have contact with their children for at least one night a week by the payment of a higher allowance. We enabled parents who pay child support to spend a greater percentage of their payments directly on their children and to nominate the areas that they wanted those funds to be targeted at. So up to 30 per cent of child support payments can now in fact be directly attributed to the desire of the non-resident parent as to how that expenditure should be met. We have certainly beefed up action to ensure child support is paid on time and in full. We all know cases where people have deliberately avoided their responsibilities for payment of child support. We also know of the huge number of people in the system who were paying just the bare minimum of $5 a week. Compliance was a problem, with only around half of all parents making their payments in full and on time, and I want to say a bit about that in a moment.

There was some debate about the reduction in the cap at the top level, where we saw the cap reduced from around $140,000 to $105,000. But I do believe that, in the context of the total package, this change will bring payments much more into line with the actual costs of raising children. We improved support for separating families through the family relationship centres. I am very pleased that we have one in Wollongong, which I have visited, and I know the great job that it is performing in assisting local families. We increased minimum payments. In my view they are not sufficient, but they have gone up from $5 a week to just over $6 and in future will be indexed to the CPI.

In the second stage of the changes, operative from January this year, there is now the capacity for an independent review of Child Support Agency decisions through the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. Many parents who have visited me have complained about the high legal costs in challenging decisions of the CSA when they have to go through a court process. I think it will remove the immense financial burden on people who are unhappy with outcomes as a result of decisions made by the agencies.

Importantly, too, since January this year parents will be provided with more time to work out their parenting arrangements before their family payments are affected. Previously, a separated parent was allowed only 28 days in which to take action to obtain child support payments before their family tax benefit A payments were affected. This time frame, as I know from personal experience, often caused conflict between separating parents, often undermining their ability to reach agreement on parenting arrangements or, in some cases, even to reconcile the differences which led to the breakdown in their marriage or relationship. I am pleased that, from January this year, the time limit will be extended from 28 days to 13 weeks.

Early indications of the impact of these legislative changes have in fact been very heartening. Recent data from the Child Support Agency showed that more separated or divorced couples are now embracing shared parenting arrangements—not as much as we would like, but it is heading in the right direction—and that an increasing number of fathers are taking on the role of primary carer. In 2006 about 21 per cent of new cases listed fathers as the primary care giver, compared with just 7½ per cent in 1997. I am pleased to see an increase in contact between non-custodial parents and their children, with the number of those parents who see their children 30 per cent or more of nights a year doubling—from a low base but nevertheless doubling—in the recent period. I think these factors are a growing indication of changes in attitude in custody disputes, which is a good thing, especially for children in situations of marital breakdown.

I am also pleased that the Child Support Agency and the tax office have been more proactive in putting the squeeze on what are described as child support cheats. We all know of cases where people deliberately minimise their assessable taxable income to avoid their obligations to their children. It was recently reported that more than 35,000 divorced parents, mainly fathers, have been forced to pay $13 million in a major tax office crackdown on parents who do not file their tax returns in order to avoid paying their legal child support obligations.

Senator Ellison recently commented that this new program was expected to net some $460 million in child support payments over the next four years. We certainly hope that occurs, because there have been many sole parent families left in the lurch by people deliberately falsifying or minimising their assessable taxable income to avoid their obligations of financial contribution to raising their children.

From July next year we will see the final stage of the long-awaited changes to the formula for calculating child support—a new formula that will form the basis for the calculation of child support. For the first time we will have a formula which will be based on our own Australian research and provide a more objective and realistic assessment of the actual costs of raising children. The formula will treat the incomes and living costs of both parents more equitably and take into account the fact that older children cost more to raise. It will also ensure that children from first and second families are treated more equitably. That has been a major cause of complaint from constituents who ask me why children of subsequent partnering and marriage are treated less favourably than children from the first marriage.

These changes will see parents share in the cost of supporting their children according to their capacity to pay. The new proposals and the new formula move away from the principle that the existing formula is based on—that is, the principle of continuity of expenditure, which somehow tries to artificially maintain the intact family standard of living post separation. Something that has always baffled me and I have found hard to explain to my constituents is the basis of the percentages in the current formula and how they apply in a fair way. I think that for the first time, in moving towards an income-sharing approach, we will have a far more objective and scientific basis on which to respond to those issues. I think the new formula will better reflect the principle of shared parental responsibility and better reflect the changes in workforce participation by women. It is proposed that in future the cost of raising children will be based on the parents’ combined income, with the costs distributed between the mother and the father, or the resident and non-resident parent, in accordance with their respective share of that combined income and their level of contact with their children. Both parents will now have a component for their self-support deducted from the income table.

Very importantly, in moving away from the arbitrary percentages that we have had applied in the past, we will for the first time, courtesy of the fantastic work done by the University of Canberra’s National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, have a much more objective and realistic assessment of the actual cost of raising children. As NATSEM themselves argue, the calculations can never be perfect; but they will be as close as researchers believe it is possible to be. For example, they have estimated that for a single child up to the age of four the average cost of care is $91 per week in a two-parent family and $115 per week in a single-parent family. For a five- to 12-year old, the cost rose to $95 per week in a two-income family and $119 per week in a single-parent family. I give those examples to make the point that it will be much easier to address the constant complaints and concerns when you can say to people who come to see you that at least, for the first time, we have the best calculations possible as to the actual cost of raising children today.

Some people have argued with me that high-income earners appear to be favoured and advantaged by these changes and asked me whether I think that is fair. I guess that is a judgement people will come to in regard to their individual assessments, but I would note that a non-resident parent supporting two children under the age of 12 would still be making payments in the order of $472 per week at the top end and that those payments are in fact higher than the objective data that NATSEM has produced on the cost of raising children. So, even though initially it might appear that it skews the advantage to high-income earners, when you look at the reduction in the cap against the actual costs I think you see that there is a measure of fairness in it. As I indicated earlier, the task force recommended an increase in the self-support amount, that it should be the same for both parents and that children from first and second families and partnerships ought to be treated as equally as possible. The formula also recognises that regular face-to-face contact is an important component in assessing child support payments.

I have some concerns about the withdrawal rate for child support liability. It has been suggested that regular contact—that is, contact of at least five nights per fortnight—should entitle the non-resident parent to a 24 per cent reduction in their child support liability. I would urge the government to review that before the changes are introduced because I do feel that that rate of reduction is too high and, in fact, could have the unintended consequence of leaving too many sole parents—usually resident mums—in a more vulnerable position than they are in today. I think if we could revisit that 24 per cent reduction for the non-resident parent who has the child or children for at least five nights a fortnight, we might get to a better and fairer outcome and address some of the very important issues that the member for Jagajaga raised in her contribution. We still have time to do that before the final legislative changes are enacted.

I would like to talk about one example from evidence given to a Senate committee recently by Jaqueline Taylor from the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children. She said:

... calculating the financial impact on single mother families post July next year has actually been an incredibly difficult thing to do because there is nothing available to help us with that. There has been no modelling done by the government to actually calculate the impact that these changes will have on sole parent families and we cannot forget that this is also in conjunction with Welfare to Work and the loss of income from that.

So it would be a great tragedy, in my view, if all the positive and innovative changes that recognise the anomalies and the difficulties inherent in the current formula were to falter on the rock of leaving some people, predominantly sole parent mums, in a more precarious and vulnerable position than they are now in. It is important for the government to ensure that the overall package is correlated very closely and carefully with welfare policies and benefits to ensure that low-income households raising children are not left worse off than they are presently. I think it would be a terrible shame were child poverty levels to rise as an unintended consequence of the positive changes recommended by the Parkinson report. I am very pleased that I had the opportunity to participate in the review. I am very proud of the report we presented and I am very encouraged by the legislative changes that will shake up the family law system and child support in this country.

Gary Hardgrave (Moreton, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before turning to the provisions of the Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment (Child Support Reform Consolidation and Other Measures) Bill 2007, I wish to delay the House for a moment to congratulate the member for Throsby on her very carefully considered observations. I find virtually no fault with anything she has just said. I could leave my remarks there, to the relief of everyone, and take my seat, but I shall not. I would like to contribute to the discussion. The member for Throsby has, to my mind, outlined some very real circumstances. I am optimistic that Minister Brough, because of his great capacity to listen, will look very closely at what the member for Throsby has just said about single parents, and particularly single mothers, who may feel a sense of vulnerability. We in our various electorate offices see that every day. I am optimistic that Minister Brough will look very closely at what the member for Throsby said. I am certain that over the next 12 months he will ensure that by 1 July next year we have some of those matters put to rest.

It is absolutely important in this debate that we drive out any sense of victimhood. The member for Throsby is right to say that the minimum $5, now $6,  contribution is not enough. That $5 contribution was not in place until the last decade—that minimum expectation of people, say, on a pension or benefit to make a contribution towards the raising of the child in the custody of the other parent. I do not think that $5 is anywhere near enough. I do not want to see $6. I want to see $25. That might be a mark in the sand that I do not mind putting on the table.

Nothing annoys me more as a local member than to hear the stories of a delinquent and absent parent who does not even bother, who does not even try, to contribute any money towards the upkeep of their child. Recently I had in my office the case of a young woman with an ex-partner who, because of the way the family law system works, has to have a phone number for access and who uses that phone number to ring her and abuse her. He screams at her over the phone.

In saying that, I do not want to typecast the blokes as always being at fault. That is often not the case. There are circumstances like those of another case I had, in which a man and a woman’s relationship broke down, which I am sure everyone would see as an absolute tragedy. They had a child between them. They had reached agreement on a sensible parenting plan, as they were encouraged to do, where essentially the wage structures of both were the same. Even though one cashed out part of their wage to receive a car from a state government department, basically their incomes were exactly the same. They had one child between them and they had reached agreement on a parenting plan of 50 per cent each looking after the child. The child had access to both parents. But the woman involved—and good luck to her—found another man and got married. She rang her former husband and said: ‘I have to change the arrangements now. I am pregnant with another child, so I am going to retire from work and you are going to pay for me to have the baby.’ This was because of the way the system used to operate. He was now culpable because he was going to be the income earner. Under the way the system had operated in the past, he was the person who basically paid for his former wife to have a baby with someone else.

That is one of the reasons why there are people in my electorate who are just hanging on for the changes, which the member for Throsby and others no doubt will outline, at the start of next year, where we will see the more equitable treatment of both parents’ incomes being taken into account. We will see a further decline in the situation where people use child support as a form of revenge on the previous partner. They use it as a means of financially beating up or controlling that person. So I applaud Minister Brough for the continuation of his efforts. I saw the Minister for Defence here a moment ago—he has other duties. As the supreme commander of the south-west Pacific he has many duties, no doubt. When we came to office in 1996 we inherited this system of child support, which was more fledgling than it is today and needed a lot of work. A number of us worked with then Minister Jocelyn Newman to effect some changes. It has taken a long time to drive them along. I remember that the member for Chifley in the previous Keating government chaired an inquiry into this, saying: ‘Mate, don’t let it slip. You’ve got to ensure that there is better treatment of this, that we see both parents’ incomes being counted.’

In hammering this point I am probably ruining your career, Member for Throsby, but I am saying that I think your contribution today was very good and I think it shows that there is some real concern and effort on both sides of the chamber on this matter. What we want to see, ideally, is families staying intact, but we accept that that is, unfortunately, not always the case. The children must come first in these circumstances. The welfare of the child must be paramount. I am also looking forward to work being done to remove this formula and to perhaps individualise better the circumstances and the costs of raising children. As the parent of two teenagers, I know that they are far more expensive than when they were young kids. So I am very pleased with, and enormously proud of, the work this government has been doing in this important area.

But this bill is not just about child support reform. It contains a number of other measures. We have spent a bit of time this morning talking about child support matters because they are important, but the other measures are equally important. The bill deals with social security and veterans matters. It amends the veterans’ entitlements legislation in regard to the sale of a principal home. These homes have been asset tax exempt if the person is likely to use the proceeds to buy another home. The previous provisions have applied within 12 months. We have listened, and we have recognised what is going on in the real world. It takes a bit longer for many people to build a home than maybe that 12-month period. They have to find another place to put that money and they do not see it as an unspent asset sitting in the bank. To give people 24 months, not 12 months, is one of the measures in this bill. Equally, the bill makes amendments relating to income streams. A number of minor amendments are aimed at enhancing and improving the efficacy and the efficiency of various income-stream rules.

The bill also makes changes to the payment of the baby bonus. A few older people in my electorate have made their complaints obvious to me about the way in which the government has been making payments of the baby bonus, the $4,000—‘One for you, one for your wife and one for the country,’ said the Treasurer. Many people have been taking up the baby bonus. It does not meet the full cost of a child coming into the world. It is about encouraging people on the margins in their decision to have a baby. If it is a financial reason that is stopping them—that is, if you can make these decisions and get the timing right—this $4,000 baby bonus helps people through that.

There has been genuine concern about many single parents, and I know that the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs has made it plain that in some Indigenous communities there have been real ramifications for young women in this regard. For under 18-year-olds we are now going to put in place a formal system of instalments. We are going to pay the baby bonus in 13 fortnightly instalments, require the registration of the birth by the relevant state or territory authority as a condition of eligibility and rename the maternity payment the ‘baby bonus’. The concept is very plain. It is about not allowing any sets of circumstances whereby people see a profit out of pregnancy but realising that it is about assisting the creation of a nurturing environment for the child.

I know there will be a lot of older people in my electorate who will say: ‘In our day we never received this assistance from government. Why are you doing it now?’ Fertility rates have declined, our population is going to decline and our standard of living is going to decline over the next 20 or 30 years if we do not keep our population growing in a positive way so that we have productive members of our community able to earn a wage and pay the taxes and create the industries and all of the things that people of past generations have done. We are the only country, as I understand it, in the Western world that has turned around its birth rate and, in fact, has increased its birth rate. That may be due to the fact that we have identified ways to assist people on the margins look at the financial aspect when making the decision to have a family. The situation is very positive in that regard.

Looking at the portability of family tax benefit, changes have been made to allow a portability period of 13 weeks for full payment. That is now being extended to members of the Australian Defence Force and certain Australian Federal Police personnel of the International Deployment Group. When they are deployed overseas as part of their duty and, in fact, remain overseas for longer than 13 weeks, we do not want to see them losing that family payment. We are tidying up in that respect. With Australia now involved in 10 deployments—we have never had a greater number of deployments overseas in our entire history—there are many thousands of great Australians serving our country in uniform in all sorts of places who do not deserve the impost of a system denying them access to family tax benefits. Therefore, I am pleased to support this measure. When I was in the Middle East a couple of weeks ago with the men and women of the HMAS Toowoomba and the men and women of the RAAF who were on flying missions in various parts in support of our effort to ensure Iraq remains free and gains the strength in its economy which will underpin its democracy, there were many people there who have families in Australia who will be advantaged by the efforts the government is introducing in this legislation.

We are also amending the maintenance income test provisions in the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 and clarifying the meaning of the words ‘amount received’ and ‘amount payable’. These technical amendments clarify that maintenance income received by a payee for one or more children would reduce the payee’s amount of family tax benefit A above the base rate for those children only. Such technical amendments may seem to delay the parliament from time to time but they have a critical public face and a highly personal reach each and every time we deal with these matters.

The government’s announcement in yesterday’s budget to deliver more for Australian families—an additional $4.5 billion committed over five years—will support families and children, people with disabilities, volunteers, Indigenous and older Australians. We are seeing the expenditure of $50.6 billion a year across the portfolio administered by Minister Brough and Minister Scullion. The enormous $2.1 billion childcare investment that was announced will see some very positive changes to the payment of the childcare tax rebate, which can now be brought forward and paid soon after the end of the financial year in which costs are incurred, at a cost of some $1.4 billion over four years. This measure provides a very real dividend for people in my electorate where we have great childcare services and many people paying lots of money to them. We are now in a position to ensure that my constituents, and yours as well, Mr Deputy Speaker, are able to access more money—in fact, up to $8,000—over the next few months, depending on their circumstances, to assist them in meeting the costs of child care. All of these massive amounts that are being expended by the government on behalf of the people of Australia require the careful administration that this government has brought to the task. The legislation before us has an even greater reach today than it would have had a week ago because of this major amount of additional assistance that the government is giving child care, child support and family assistance—growing the cake, growing the circumstances, growing the sense of support that can be offered.

The contrast will become very evident when we start to see the semblance of an address-in-reply and a contribution by those opposite. The challenge to those opposite in the course of this debate—to follow the example of the member for Throsby, for one—is to not send to vulnerable people in the community the signal of victimisation being their way of life. In the whole area of  family support, child care and indeed child support it is absolutely important that we encourage those people with a capacity to do for themselves to do so. The more we liberate people with the ability to do something for themselves first and foremost, and back those people, the more we can concentrate our efforts on those with no capacity to assist themselves. That is the simple difference between this side of the House and those opposite, who pretend they want to be in government later in the year and have no manifesto, no policies, no certainty—we would simply see a return to the way it used to be. One of the things that are very clear in any discussion about child support, as the member for Throsby suggested, is the fact that many families now have the challenge of balancing welfare to work, where many people on the margins are being encouraged—some might say ‘coerced’—to do for themselves first and foremost and not to wait for others to do it for them.

People are making decisions on the margins, putting their children through professional child care and giving them nurturing and an educative environment in formative years, using child care while they go off to earn a living. People are under a certain amount of pressure and expectation that they are going to help pay their way first and foremost. That is a big difference from those opposite who had a view which said to people: ‘You’re never going to achieve anything, you’re never going to get anywhere. Park yourself in welfare. Not only that, we’ll find new ways to park you in various aspects of welfare. We’ll increase the ability of people to access disability pensions and we’ll hide unemployment by making more people technically disabled for the purposes of welfare but not disabled in reality.’ They were more consumed with ensuring there were more victims in society, the theory being that, if there are more victims, more people are going to vote Labor.

On this side, we have challenged people to get off their tail and go and do for themselves. We have backed those who want to back themselves. The work we are doing through this legislation continues that journey and last night’s budget announcements enhance that very much so. People who are prepared to do for themselves are going to get great support from this government.

Whether it is child support—where the journey continues, with the efforts of the past decade now producing fruit and the promise of what will come over the years ahead—income streams or asset test exemption periods, we are saying to people, ‘If you want to work hard, to achieve something for yourselves, to make a difference in our society and grow our economy along the way, we want to back you all the way.’ I congratulate Minister Brough on the success he managed to achieve for the people of Australia who rely on him, with $50 billion plus annual expenditure through his portfolio secured by last night’s budget announcements. I congratulate him and officers of his department on the close work they do to deliver the kinds of technical amendments we have before us today.

Finally, I will end on a very special vote of thanks to members of the Child Support Agency—we have spent a bit of time talking about them. Today they are dealing with a set of circumstances which are different from a decade ago. I think they are now a lot more responsive than a decade ago to the ambitions of blokes when they get on the phone. When first elected in 1996, I heard complaints time and time again about officers of the Child Support Agency assuming that the blokes were at fault—no offence to officers but this is what people were saying to me. Now with more men involved in the process, that kind of discussion is defeated because there is an opportunity for greater action across genders and a greater sense of respect all round. We have moved things along enormously over the last decade but there is much more work to do, which is certainly part of the reason we cannot go back to what we had pre 1996, to a government that is philosophically underpinned by the creation of more victims, telling people why they cannot do something instead of encouraging them to do things for themselves. That is the philosophical difference between the Labor Party and the government, between the coalition and those who start from the position that people are going to fail. I commend this bill to the House and encourage others to follow the example of the member for Throsby in her very good contribution earlier today.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services, Housing, Youth and Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment (Child Support Reform Consolidation and Other Measures) Bill 2007 is the third in a series of child support legislative reforms. It represents the final part of the government’s 2006 reforms to the child support system. Labor have largely supported these reforms and as a result we support this bill. In the debates on the previous two bills, however, we have expressed our concerns that the government has failed to protect low-income families who may lose income as a result of the changes to the Child Support Scheme. In speaking today on this bill, I note that our concerns have still not been adequately addressed by the government.

The Child Support Scheme was set up in 1988 by the Hawke Labor government and has become a model for other governments around the world. The principle that, after divorce, parents should continue to support their children is very sound. However, over the last five years a number of organisations, academics, experts, members of this House and others have expressed genuine concerns about the scheme. The scheme has not always operated fairly and equitably. The assessment formula has not always produced good outcomes. There were particular issues with collection, arrears and compliance. It has not always been easy to get the money owed by non-custodial parents for the care of their children.

Labor have acknowledged the need for reform to the system but say that reform should not come at a cost for the poorest and most vulnerable people, in particular the 1.1 million children affected by child support and non-custodial parents who are often living in poverty in this country. In fact, custodial parents and their children are often among the poorest groups in our community. They are very vulnerable to changes which affect their income and we are very concerned that any changes in this area will not drive custodial parents and their children into poverty.

The reform process has been lengthy. In 2003 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs tabled its report Every picture tells a story: inquiry into child custody arrangements in the event of family separation. The report dealt with child support and other family separation issues and made 29 bipartisan recommendations. Among its recommendations was the establishment of a ministerial task force to evaluate the Child Support Scheme, including establishing the costs of children’s upbringing after parental separation, recognising different income levels of households and reflecting the costs for both parents of maintaining meaningful contact with their children.

In May 2005, the report of the Ministerial Taskforce on Child Support, known as the Parkinson report, provided the first systematic evaluation of the child support arrangements. It undertook a comprehensive analysis, relying on international research and commissioning modelling to come up with the best possible statistical information on the costs of children. It recommended an overhaul of the formula underlying the child support system that was based on evidence of the actual costs of raising children, shared parental responsibility for those costs and recognition of each parent’s level of care.

Last year, we debated and passed two bills which enacted many of the recommendations of the Parkinson report. Those two bills implemented a new Child Support Scheme, including a new payment formula, changing the ‘capacity to earn’ provisions, increasing the minimum payment and its indexation to the consumer price index, and increasing the amount of child support payment that the non-resident parent can direct to specific purposes.

Certainly, not all of the recommendations of the Parkinson report were adopted. Certainly, the measures in those two earlier bills were not entirely to Labor’s satisfaction, and I have made a number of criticisms in the past about aspects of that legislation. The principal concern raised by the reforms—and this remains my principal concern—is the effect of the new assessment formula on low-income resident parents, particularly those who have children under the age of 12. In all of these debates, we have tried to take a constructive approach to the reforms. It is not my intention, and it is certainly not Labor’s intention, to politicise child support. We acknowledge that it is a very difficult area to get right. However, I remain concerned, and I know many of my colleagues do, about the interaction of taking money from low-income resident parents, particularly those with children under 12, at the same time as we are introducing Welfare to Work reforms and cutting the pay and conditions of the poorest and most vulnerable workers in this country. Those three things working together are set to penalise some of the poorest people in the country and those people who are busy raising the next generation. I am worried about that.

Last week there was a Senate committee inquiry into the bill. The inquiry highlighted the concerns about low-income custodial parents. The report shows that a number of the deleterious effects have not been addressed by the government. The department responsible for child support policy, FaCSIA, gave evidence that the implementation of the reforms is not progressing as smoothly as we might hope. The department had agreed to establish a stakeholder reference group but that group apparently has met just once. The department has very little information about the impact of the new formula and new arrangements on families.

In debates on the child support bills last year, we called for transitional provisions in these bills to soften the blow for those low-income sole parent families. We certainly have not seen any of those transitional arrangements in this legislation. If we put the interests of children first and respect the original intent of the Child Support Scheme, which was to reduce child poverty, Labor would argue that there is a clear responsibility on the part of the government to ameliorate the negative effect of the changes on some of the poorest families in the country.

Today, again, we are debating these measures. Again, we call on the government to look to those most vulnerable parents and children and ensure that they are not penalised, particularly during this transitional period. I note that the ministerial task force in its report urged the same thing. The ministerial task force, on page 261 of its report, said:

... the Government may wish to give consideration to the position of those whose liability or entitlement will vary to a large extent as a result of the recommendations, to avoid causing hardship in the short term.

Certainly, that has not happened. These concerns formed the basis of recommendation 25 of the Parkinson report, which said that the government needed to ‘comprensively consider the management of the transitional issues regarding the implementation of the new formula’. Unfortunately, our pleas regarding some of the poorest families have fallen on deaf ears. No provision has been made to protect those families, particularly the ones on very low incomes. That is why we have moved a second reading amendment in this regard. These are the same families who are, as I said, affected by Welfare to Work changes and the Work Choices legislation. We will be watching very closely this interaction between the new child support legislation, the Welfare to Work changes and Work Choices.

I turn to some of the measures that I am very pleased to see in this legislation. Currently, ongoing child support can only be collected from employers if the payer is a wage or salary earner or they receive a Centrelink payment. This legislation will broaden the agency’s power to issue notices requiring the deduction of child support and the forwarding of that deduction to the Child Support Agency to include cases where the payer is under contract for service arrangements that are effectively substituting for wages. We have heard a lot over recent years about the substantial increase in the number of employees who are employed as independent contractors even when they are employed to all intents and purposes as an employee. Extending the ability of the Child Support Agency to collect in those circumstances is certainly a positive measure.

I turn briefly to the change to the payment of the baby bonus to under-18s. I am pleased to see that the government is paying the baby bonus in 13 instalments to parents under the age of 18. I am sure there are responsible parents out there who are under the age of 18, but I fear that the temptation of a $4,000 lump sum may be too much for some of them. I think it is a more certain thing to pay people over a number of fortnights in order to avoid some of the worst effects that we have heard about in the payment of the baby bonus. Labor has said all along that, in cases where the money is likely not to be used in the best interests of the children, this should be something that we consider.

Labor supports the payment of the baby bonus generally as a good measure for helping parents when they encounter a lot of high costs around the time of the birth of the child. I am generally very sceptical when I hear stories about people living high on the hog on a few thousand dollars of government support at the time of the birth of a child, but there have been too many stories of concern in this area for us to ignore them completely. The stories that were brought to my attention in relation to under-18s and the baby bonus, or more generally younger parents and the baby bonus, were not coming from the usual shock-jock sources; they were coming from youth workers, grandparents and community health nurses—people who have everyday contact with young parents and who want to support them, encourage them and teach them how to be good parents. They were not people who were interested in putting down young parents but people who were concerned that some of the money was not being spent in ways that were particularly useful for very young children. One woman told Today Tonight that her daughter was an ice addict who had seven children and that her daughter had told her, the grandmother, that she had had more children just to get the $4,000 baby bonus for each. On the same program, a 19-year-old mother of three said she had had her children just to get the baby bonus. I do not think this is widespread. I do not think many people are doing it; I think we are talking about tiny numbers. But it breaks my heart to think that any child would be brought into the world for such a reason.

It is easy to discount these reports because we hear them from sensationalist sources that are interested in beating them up because they make good TV or are a good story, but we also have people like Father Chris Riley, who dedicates every day of his life to helping and supporting young people, saying that this payment has been causing ‘children to have children’. They are his words: ‘children to have children’. A Western Sydney youth service reported directly to me that some of their clients saw the $4,000 as a good way to buy a car or, in one case, a purebred dog. A Tasmanian youth worker told me that he knew of young men who were convincing their girlfriends to become pregnant, collecting the baby bonus when the baby was born and then shooting through. Sometimes they were not convincing their girlfriends to become pregnant but, if they became accidentally pregnant, were thinking, ‘Hang on a minute; I can get $4,000.’ A Hawkesbury social worker told me of a young man who had systematically befriended lonely pregnant girls, waited until they had given birth, convinced them to part with their baby bonus and then taken off. He boasted to this social worker that he had done this five times, and he was working on his sixth victim when the social worker chased him off. Again, I do not think we are talking about thousands of cases, but the tragedy of every one of these cases means that we need to take action, and Labor, as I said, has been calling for action in this area for some time.

Domestic violence services report that levels of abuse rise about six weeks after the birth, just when the cheque comes in. Some women are handing over the money just to get rid of a violent partner. These are individual stories, but we need to be aware, when we make these sorts of payments, of the social impact of the payments, even if that impact is on a small proportion of our population. I want to live in a society in which every child is wanted and every child is loved, and in which parents are emotionally ready to cope with this lifelong commitment, the most important job they can have.

I understand that it is difficult to design a system that takes into account the lengths that poorly motivated people will go to. You cannot design a perfect system that is able to prevent the human will to do wrong if that is a person’s intention, but I think this is a positive measure towards reducing this problem. Certainly, I think that more broadly in situations where children are at risk of neglect the baby bonus could be paid fortnightly so that it is more likely to be spent on bills and other child-rearing expenses. A lot of organisations are already dealing with parents whose children are at risk of abuse and neglect and I think we could do more in that area. Taking the ‘jackpot’ effect out of this payment is something positive that may prevent children from being born into really damaging circumstances, so on that basis we support this change.

I will finish by saying that it is important to remember that this payment was introduced with the purpose of increasing the birthrate. There has been a blip in the birthrate, mostly because the cohort of women my age, who delayed childbearing because they were studying and getting a university education and doing all the rest of it, is now having children. Has it had an effect? Maybe. It is difficult to tell. We do know, though, what does work when it comes to increasing the birthrate. If we look at countries overseas with developed economies which have higher birthrates, it is because they have good supports for families. They have paid maternity leave or paid parental leave, they have better systems of child care than we have here and more affordable child care, and they have workplaces that recognise that both parenting and paid work are essential roles. While of course Labor supports this payment for new parents, we think we really need to address those other areas of support for families if we are serious about increasing the birthrate in Australia.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on behalf of the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs to speak on the Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment (Child Support Reform Consolidation and Other Measures) Bill 2007. The purpose of this follow-up bill is to complete consequential amendments and make minor refinements needed for the implementation of the new child support formula on 1 July 2008. The bill consolidates the government’s substantial 2006 legislation that restructured the Child Support Scheme in line with the recommendations of the ministerial task force on child support chaired by Professor Patrick Parkinson.

The bill makes a variety of other amendments to Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs portfolio legislation. This bill makes refinements to the major 2006 child support legislation. A more fair treatment of child support will be made where there are children of different ages in different households. Child support agreements between parents are being better supported and strengthened and their interaction with family tax benefit clarified. Remote area allowance under the social security and veteran’s entitlement legislation is being extended, so parents with regular care of a child—that is, care of between 14 and 35 per cent—will continue to receive the allowance after the 1 July 2008 changes to family tax benefit.

Some of the processes relating to the review of child support decisions by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal are being clarified and the changed arrangements with the courts refined. The bill relocates some provisions from the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 2004. While that bill has been overtaken by the reform of the Child Support Scheme, some measures are still required. The provisions move measures from the regulations into the primary child support legislation, allowing Australia to meet its international child support obligations. Some refinements are also being made to the provisions after years of experience of their operation.

The 2004 bill measures include several amendments to improve equity between the two parties to a child support case in accessing the court for review of any decision about whether one of the parties is a parent of the child in question. Some minor streamlining refinements are also being made to the internal review system for child support decisions generally.

The last of the 2004 bill measures are of a minor policy or technical nature and are generally to address anomalies in the current system or to improve aspects of child support administration—for example, amendments to broaden the ways in which an application for an extension of time to lodge an internal review application, known as an ‘objection’, can be made. The new bill also includes several family assistance amendments—for example, the maintenance income test provisions for family tax benefit are being refined. This is partly to reflect the new treatment under the child support reforms for child support agreements and lump sum child support.

Refinements are also being made to certain elements of the formula used to work out the notional amount of maintenance income an individual is taken to have received under a child support agreement or court order where there is an underpayment of child support registered for collection by the Child Support Agency. It is also being clarified that maintenance income received by a payee for one or more children would reduce the payee’s amount of family tax benefit part A above the base rate for those children only.

Separate amendments to the baby bonus provisions will formally rename the payment the ‘baby bonus’, rather than the ‘maternity payment’, in line with most people’s understanding. Under-18-year-old claimants will be paid the baby bonus in 13 instalments, rather than in a lump sum, and registration of birth as a condition of eligibility for the baby bonus will be introduced. Under this bill, the usual 13-week period for full payment of family tax benefit while temporarily outside Australia will be extended for members of the Australian Defence Force and certain Australian Federal Police personnel in the International Deployment Group who are deployed overseas as part of their duties and, as a result, remain overseas for longer than 13 weeks.

Cyclone Larry has shown that a year may not be long enough where the rebuilding efforts of a disaster-affected community are stretched. The bill will extend the current 12 months principal home temporary absence rules for absences of up to 24 months for people who have suffered loss or damage to their homes due to a disaster. The bill will also assist people who cannot purchase or build a new home within 12 months due to factors beyond their control by extending the asset test exemption of principal home sale proceeds from 12 months up to 24 months. Another measure ensures the claim rules for the new Australian government disaster recovery payment work correctly for non-resident Australian citizens.  Lastly, the bill will make minor refinements to the operation of the income streams provisions of the social security and veterans’ means tests.

On behalf of the minister, I thank all of those officials and community members involved in the consultation for and preparation of this bill. I also thank the speakers on both sides of the House. I am delighted to commend the Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment (Child Support Reform Consolidation and Other Measures) Bill 2007 to the House.

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Jagajaga has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.