Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on behalf of the Australian Democrats to the Child Support Legislation Amendment (Reform of the Child Support Scheme—Initial Measures) Bill 2006. As other speakers have indicated, this bill is the first of three stages of a very significant overhaul of the Child Support Scheme. I do not think there would be a politician in this place, in the Senate or the House of Reps, who has not had significant representation from a wide range of perspectives expressing concern about how the Child Support Scheme operates, which I think is an indication of how fraught and difficult this area is.

This first stage of the legislation contains a number of key measures: increasing the minimum payment for child support; strengthening the Child Support Agency’s capacity to ensure parents pay their payments in full and on time, which I think is particularly important; recognising non-resident parents on Newstart and related payments who have contact with their children; and reducing the maximum amount of child support payable by high-income earners to ensure those payments are better aligned with the actual costs of children, an area which is perhaps one of the more contentious parts of this first part of the legislation. There are also arrangements for assessing the capacity of parents to earn income, enabling non-resident parents to spend a greater proportion of the payments directly on their children and helping separating parents agree on arrangements for their children. There are more changes coming down the track in the second part of the year. A particularly important one is the allowance of an independent review of all Child Support Agency decisions by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, which I think will address one area that has been the source of very significant frustration. And there are further changes coming in from July 2008.

The aspect of this legislation that causes me some concern is the reduction in the maximum income for payers under the child support formula. This will mean very high income people—people in the top three or so per cent of income earners in Australia—will pay less. I think there is an arguable case for doing this, although I agree with Senator Evans that doing it basically overnight on 1 July, when it will potentially mean a very significant reduction in someone’s income, is not that desirable. What is put forward here is one of three parts of a comprehensive package that results from a very comprehensive review process which involved a lot of engagement with a wide range of stakeholders on the issue. Of course, it is problematic to pick out just one aspect and to trash that bit without it having flow-on effects to all of the other areas. Obviously there has been some attempted balancing in terms of the different interests and impacts on people. As I indicated at the start, this is an incredibly fraught area and one where it is impossible to satisfy all of the different views and concerns.

The key issue for the Democrats is to look at what will produce the best outcome for the children. I should say that part of that includes ensuring that you do not maximise the antagonism between parents. Obviously having a better relationship and connection with parents is in the best interests of the child as well. I think even the wisdom of Solomon would fall short of satisfying people in many respects, but this is somewhere that we need to continue to make the effort to get the system working as well as possible. I think the change that is coming down the track to enable appeals to be made to CSA assessments is an important one. I also agree with Senator Moore about the improvement in resourcing of the Child Support Agency. It is very important that they have the ability and time to make some of these very difficult assessments.

From my experience and from the perceptions I have got from the many people who have complained to me, the problem is not just the decision they have received from the assessment people; it is the process that has been used. Many people have perceived a dismissive attitude or a brick wall approach from the Child Support Agency. Whilst I do not suggest that a nice smiling face will necessarily satisfy everybody if they do not get a result they like, the process is important. It is an important part of how people perceive what is done and why a decision is reached. It is an important part of people at least having more understanding of why certain outcomes have occurred. If they have an opportunity to work through that with people more able to explain it and more able to ensure that the correct decisions are made the first time around, then it will at least reduce some of the very severe dissatisfaction that some people have with the Child Support Agency. So those certainly are positive measures.

It is also important to review how these measures operate and what the impact of them is. I imagine most people would not like to have another continuing set of reviews of this whole area. The process of reviewing the child support system and formula has already taken a very long period of time. It will take another couple of years yet before the whole lot of it is embedded in legislation, so I am loath to talk immediately about whether there is a need to change it again. But it is important to review how these changes operate—whether they function in a way people have anticipated, whether there are unintended consequences and whether there are more difficulties encountered by various people, particularly by children, than expected. Having said that, it is very difficult to pull one part out without the whole house of cards falling down, given how much this has all been knitted together.

The main thing the Democrats would emphasise is that, whilst that could apply as a general comment, that does not mean we give carte blanche endorsement to every aspect of the package of changes that are being put forward now or will be put forward down the track. It also means that we will continue to do what we can to monitor the impacts. We do believe it is an important issue. It obviously affects many Australian families of all types and, of course, many children, so it is important that we do it as well as possible and do all we can to get it right. Overall, this is certainly a step forward in that regard. I acknowledge that. I do not think it is perfect. From that point of view, I think we will all keep focusing on it, and I am sure we will all keep hearing about aspects that are creating dissatisfaction for people.