Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Hansard source

[by video link] I rise to speak to the third interim and final report of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System. I thank the committee secretariat for its considerable efforts since the establishment of this inquiry, for which I have fought tooth and nail. I was the one who got this inquiry up.

As many parents have attested, and as I myself have experienced, Australia's child support system is outdated, unfair and unjust. It's a broken system that breaks people. We can fix it, and we must fix it. It works to compound the hurt, pain and anxiety felt by parents at the breakdown of a relationship. It's a system which can be effectively weaponised by acrimonious parties seeking to inflict further hurt and financial penalty. It's a system which can effectively allow children to be used as pawns in such conflicts. It's a system which doesn't have to be this way, and, since my election to the Senate, I have worked hard to bring these matters to light and debate.

Ultimately, what we need is a fairer child support system which works to ensure all parents meet and fairly share their responsibilities to their children, works to ensure child support does not impoverish the party paying it or unduly enriches the party receiving it, minimises the cost to taxpayers through efficiency and streamlined processes, and ensures optimum service and speedy resolution to disputes.

I'd like to relate a complaint I received about the child support system which illustrates just how outdated, unfair and unjust it is. This parent equally shares access to and financial support for three children with their ex-partner. However, on receiving a pay rise, this parent was suddenly required to increase child support by $1,500 per year, even though their children's expenses did not change. Upon the ex-partner having a child with someone else, this parent was required to increase child support by another $2,000 per year, paying more to support a child who was not theirs. How is this fair? This is just one of the many examples of the inequity built into Australia's broken child support system.

I've been working towards a fairer child support system since I was elected to the Senate. In my first meeting with Prime Minister Turnbull, I said the family law and child support systems needed to be fixed.

This inquiry was about getting to the root of the problems and finding real solutions. But, despite the evidence presented by so many people who have experienced its unfairness, some of the other members of the committee have turned a deaf ear. They've preferred to listen to the bureaucrats and lobby groups who inflict this pain on parents, not the parents themselves. Perhaps it's due to the lack of personal experience with the system among committee members; it may be a little confronting for them to consider the input of families destroyed by this system.

I've had a lot of personal experience with this system, and I propose a number of practical solutions to address the problems. For me this comes down to the simple fact that both parents have brought their children into the world, so they alone should share the responsibility of raising and supporting them. The aim for everyone should be equal child access, except where a parent is clearly unfit. While we must always ensure the welfare of children, we in this place are obliged by the Constitution to legislate parental rights. We don't need another stolen generation of children estranged or cut off from their family, including their grandparents. Many grandparents feel that they haven't been heard in this debate.

To this end, I have proposed the following principles. Assessable income should be defined as net salary, or wage after tax. It must be recognised that 80 per cent of working Australians are pay-as-you-go employees, and it's unfair that current child support arrangements discriminate against them in comparison to self-employed people. Services Australia consider $526.50 a week to be a liveable retained income, on the basis that approximately $27,000 a year is the threshold at which child support payments kick in. But, in a briefing, I told them they were leaving parents who are paying child support with as little as $370 per week. They had no idea. If $526 a week is the minimum, paying child support should not leave parents with less in their pay packets.

Salary assessment should be based on a 38-hour week and should not include overtime or additional employment. People need the incentive to move on with their lives. Child support should be based on the number of children at the time of separation, not based on subsequent children with other parents. Residential costs should be assessed individually, as both parents need to have homes to accommodate their children. Family tax benefits A and B should be part of assessable income. At the moment, a single parent with one dependent child receives a fortnightly family tax benefit payment of $320 which is not assessable income. Potential earning capacity or ability should not be a factor in income assessment. Just because someone is capable of earning a larger income does not entitle Services Australia to assess them in this way. WorkCover or TPI payments should not be assessable income and nor should superannuation payouts. Punitive action should result if a payee parent acts in contravention of court orders or mutual agreements regarding visitation rights. Child support payments should incorporate the travel incurred in delivering a child between parents and should be a shared responsibility.

Ultimately, the fairest approach is to determine child support payments according to what is needed to raise the child—food, clothing, housing, education and medical care—shared by both parents. This should be based on the average cost of such support to the average Australian family. The cost of raising a child should be the only factor which dictates the contributions from both parents. We must ensure these contributions are in fact to be spent solely on raising the child. Many parents are sick of paying child support only to see their ex driving a new car or taking luxury holidays. It's recommended that payments are made to a special child support account, and the recipient must be accountable to Services Australia for its expenditure. Where child access is between 35 and 65 per cent, effectively, costs are the same, so there simply should be no child support. This will minimise the practice of acrimonious parents withholding child access to boost their child support payments. It will take the sting out of it, and parents will be able to spend more time with their kids. It will also minimise costs, save a lot of time and encourage parents to get themselves a job and face up to their responsibilities, instead of relying on child support for income. They can move forward with their careers instead of taking lower-paid jobs to minimise their child support payments.

These are practical solutions which should have been adopted by the committee as formal recommendations. They haven't been, which has obliged me to lodge a dissenting report. In an attempt to prevent my dissenting report, the committee has just amended this report to include my proposals as issues raised, with a vague recommendation that these proposals be explored by some task force. It's not enough—not by a long shot. My dissenting report stands as an indictment of the refusal of the government and opposition to make meaningful changes to a broken child support system. I am not appeased. I will not be appeased until there is a real commitment to return fairness to child support. Ultimately, we all want the best for all families involved in these incredibly difficult circumstances—children and parents.

I will not speak to the remainder of the report except to say that I support some recommendations and disagree with others. What is more important is fixing a broken system that is ineffective, costly, slow and inequitable and which is all too easily abused in the name of acrimony and appeasing self-interest groups. It's time for a fairer system, and I'm not stopping until we get it. Too many parents are taking their lives due to our family law and child support systems. All parents and children deserve better. I believe Senator Waters is biased in her comments and is reluctant to acknowledge that domestic violence is committed by women, also. Evidence given was in camera. There was no traumatisation there. Everyone had a chance to put their story across. But, as I said, at the end of the day, we have to address the fact that people are committing suicide. They are taking their own lives. Children are not having time to spend with their parents. Grandparents are being denied the right to see grandchildren. If we can't intervene in the household, why are we doing it and telling them they can't see the children just because they go through the family law system and the courts? Judges need to wake up to the fact that they are denying parents the right to see their children. This is a fight I will continue on behalf of many Australians. (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.