Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am disappointed to see the second reading amendment to the Child Support Legislation Amendment (Reform of the Child Support Scheme—Initial Measures) Bill 2006 by the opposition. The amendment calls on the government to provide protection against income reductions for low-income households raising children. This is a populist comment. It says that the taxpayer should pick up the cost because a particular family separated. I do not think the world works like that. I would have much preferred to have seen from the Australian Labor Party an amendment which said that the opposition congratulates the government on doing the hard work that was necessary to bring forward this legislation—the first tranche of legislation that will see very significant reforms in the child support arrangements. We all know as members of parliament that this area is a minefield—that for every winner there is a loser—but the government has bitten the bullet, made hard decisions and brought forward some very sensible legislation indeed.

In fact, I think on balance most parents who are subject to this legislation agree with what the government is proposing. For once I would have thought perhaps the Labor Party could have said, as the member for Isaacs just said in this place, ‘Yes, it is good legislation.’ For once the Labor Party might have considered not tacking on a populist bit, which is not going to succeed—and I do not think any parent or taxpayer would want it to succeed. Professor Parkinson is highly regarded in the work that he has done in the ministerial task force. He has considered all of these issues and reported to the government, and the results of that report appear in the legislation before the parliament this afternoon.

There is bipartisan support for this legislation and I am pleased to see that. I recognise that and I thank the opposition for their support. Over the years many Labor members have done a lot of work on this, and so have many government members. All of us have struggled to know what we can do, but we have had this tremendous guidance, first from Kay Hull’s committee, the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, which produced the Every picture tells a story report, and then from Professor Parkinson’s report. It is good to see that bipartisan support.

I was intrigued with the history of all of this and I went to have a look at what has been said previously. Back on 24 March 1987 the then Minister for Social Security and member for Batman, Brian Howe, indicated to this parliament that in that year we would see the start of a system to ensure a new deal for children of separated and divorced parents. In that year—I think it was 1988 when it became the law—there was a child support process to address the areas of community concern in relation to child support and the inadequate support provided by non-custodial parents to children living in Australia’s sole parent families.

A lot has changed since then and a lot has remained the same. There is a need for child support. The overwhelming majority of cases that we see are a result of marriage breakdown or a split in de facto relationships. Most of the children in these families come from homes where two parents once shared the responsibility for expenses and care. A situation has developed where too many parents no longer share a house with their children and they now fail to share their income with these children. That situation remains. What has changed, of course, is the government’s determination to make sure that children know both their parents. Children should be able to be cared for by both of their parents. That is a good thing, and that has been recognised and incorporated in the government’s philosophy. So the philosophy now is not only that parents should share the cost of supporting their children according to their capacity to pay but that adequate support should be available for the children from both parents and that access should be available to both parents. The government is agreed on that.

We are now making some very major changes. This bill represents the first tranche of legislation—the first phase of implementation. The legislation has some notable changes, including changes that incorporate the need to reward nonresident parents on income support who have contact with their children. There will be more dollars available there. The current provision will be broadened to parents who have care of their children for at least one night per week, and that is really going to increase the number of parents who will benefit from that particular measure. There will be a fairer assessment of the capacity of parents to earn income. We have all heard some horrendous stories where the CSA, operating under the current law, have just deemed a parent to be able to earn a certain amount of income, whether or not they can do it in practice.

This sort of thing is happening in my area, and I will give the House an example. A person may be working in the mining industry on a fly-in fly-out basis: a person who may live in Townsville will fly to Cannington, for example, to the silver-zinc mine. They are on extraordinarily high wages compared to the rest of the community because they stay away for an extended period and then fly back home again. The wages are paid in recognition of them being away for such a long time, but sometimes people get sick of this sort of lifestyle. It is kind of like being a parliamentarian, flying down to work and being away for a long time from your home and family and so on. These people may choose to say: ‘I’m not going to do this anymore. I’m going to seek a job on the coast and stay at home.’ The CSA was looking at their income from the mine and basically saying, ‘You’ve got to pay child support because you are capable of working in a mine; therefore, you’ve got to pay a high rate.’ But that is condemning a worker to not having choice over where they work. They have not in the past wilfully decided not to work at a mine because they want to reduce their child support payments; they have done it because of lifestyle issues. The point I come to is that there is this fairer assessment of the capacity of parents to earn income.

But the key thing in the legislation is the ability now to go to an appeal process if the payer thinks that he has been unfairly assessed. Previously you were not able to do that. It is a credit to the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough, for introducing this in the legislation so that people now will be able to ensure that they are treated fairly. That is what happens in other areas of payments, where you can go to an appeal tribunal. You will now be able to do it in this case. Legislation will be introduced later to reduce the maximum payments and do more to ensure that child support is paid in full and on time.

In the couple of minutes left to me before we hear from the member for Canberra, I want to observe a very important change in the government’s philosophy, which is encapsulated in a few words: improved service delivery by the Child Support Agency. We have all heard the horror stories. We have all heard the accusations that the Child Support Agency hates men. I have never believed that. I have always found the Child Support Agency people to be really decent people. Of course, we have to remember on the other side of the ledger that, almost on a daily basis, they have to deal with very aggressive customers who bring their marital problems into the Child Support Agency office. It is not CSA’s fault that a marriage breaks down. CSA staff quite properly just enforce or deal with the legislation that currently exists. But as a government we are now pouring a whole lot more resources into helping our Child Support Agency staff to know and understand the psychology of their customers, to know and understand how best to deal with them, so that people who do come in in a very aggressive manner can be professionally assisted and their aggression dealt with. That is a really big change in what we are doing. I thank the government for that. I know that the CSA will now go on to be a better organisation to help the mums and dads who have unfortunately separated. I support the bill and I commend it to the House.

See this speech in context