Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Child Support Legislation Amendment (Reform of the Child Support Scheme—Initial Measures) Bill 2006. The purpose of this bill is to implement the first stage of the government’s child support reforms in response to the report of the ministerial task force on child support, the Parkinson report. The government’s reforms will be introduced in stages from July 2006 to July 2008.

The Parkinson report provides a strong and constructive basis for moving forward. Labor acknowledges the need for reform of the Child Support Scheme. We support this bill. We also recognise that the package as a whole is the result of careful consideration by an expert committee and that it has used sound principles to develop a balance of measures. To unpick the package by amending certain measures would undermine some of the integrity of the package and could lead to further inequities. Therefore we support the package, albeit with the amendment that has been moved by the member for Sydney.

As I said earlier, the bill that we are debating today introduces the first stage of reforms and includes a range of measures. This bill will increase the minimum payment and index the minimum to ensure that child support payments keep pace with inflation. The current $5 a week minimum payment is not indexed. I wholeheartedly agree with this measure. If the cost of caring for a child increases, then it is only fair that child support payments keep up with those costs.

This bill will also provide more detailed and workable arrangements for determining a liable parent’s capacity to earn. Under the Child Support Scheme, parents can be required to pay additional child support, or parents may be entitled to receive less support, if the Child Support Agency determines they have a higher capacity to earn. Under the current scheme, the provisions are too broad, and this can lead to payments which do not take into consideration changed circumstances. For example, a child support payer may need to work less because of new caring responsibilities or they may have lost their job; however, they may still be required to pay child support based on their previous income.

This bill will enable nonresident parents to offset 30 per cent, up from 25 per cent, of their payment against any credited amount spent directly on the children—for example, school fees and medical costs. Currently, nonresident parents can spend up to 25 per cent of their child support liability directly on the children. The Parkinson report recommended that the limit be increased to 30 per cent because it allows the paying parent to be confident that the children are benefiting from the child support and it gives them some sense of control over how the child support is used.

Whilst we can legislate as best we possibly can, it is impossible to legislate against human nature—something that we often would like to try to do. When we talk about additional costs being paid—and I have just referred to the direct costs incurred in caring for the child—that immediately brings to mind a constituent’s case some little while ago now where the nonresident parent was so intent on being difficult that the resident parent and the child concerned at one stage owned something like 40 school jumpers. I am not making it up. So, whilst I can fully support the changes that I have just referred to, we have to be aware that some people, regardless of our best intent across this chamber, will remain hell-bent on being difficult to their ex-partner or ex-family. That was the starkest example I ever saw, when the nonresident parent walked in carrying two large black plastic garbage bags in which resided something like 40 school jumpers, all of them in pretty good nick. We must remember that people who are no longer in a relationship but share responsibilities for children can be in a very stressed state, so I support any measures that help parents do what is best for their children.

Another measure of this bill will reduce the maximum income cap from $139,347 to $104,702, which will reduce the amount of child support payable by high-income nonresident parents. This will see a substantial reduction in the child support paid by some higher income earners as of 1 July this year. This may cause some hardship for some resident families; therefore Labor is calling on the government to consider phasing in this change so as to provide a period of adjustment for those resident families. It is important to note that this measure will become redundant if a new formula for the assessment of child support is introduced.

The Parkinson report recommended a new formula for the assessment of child support, which would be based on evidence of the actual costs of raising children, the principle of shared parental responsibility for those costs and a recognition of each parent’s level of care. The new formula is planned for introduction in the third stage of the legislation. Labor’s principal concern is the effect of the new formula on low-income families with children under 12. While we support a new formula that is based on the actual costs of raising children in separated families, and which attempts to fairly divide those costs and recognise the level of care provided, we cannot ignore the effects that the new formula will have on low-income resident families.

While Labor supports the fairness of recognising the costs of care incurred by the nonresident parent, we also recognise that the consequent decrease in child support liabilities paid to the resident parent may not correspond to any decrease in that parent’s costs. Labor believes that there is a responsibility for government in limiting the negative effects of these changes on low-income resident families. These families are already under significant financial pressure and, in implementing these reforms, we must consider their effects to ensure that children in these families are not disadvantaged. It is here that I strongly support the amendment moved by the member for Sydney.

One of the most challenging aspects of my job as a local member in this parliament is seeing the difficulties that can follow family breakdown. I would dare to say that there is not a member in this House who would not share that view. I see resident parents who are struggling to make ends meet and support their children who believe their children’s other parent is not contributing according to their capacity. On the other hand, I also see nonresident parents who miss their children and believe they are providing support beyond their means.

The other aspect that I and many others have seen is the very sad aspect where, in some cases, a nonresident parent believes that they should have access purely on the amount of money they pay in child support, regardless of the circumstances within the family that may exist. We have also seen resident parents who, for one reason or another, decide to make it difficult for the nonresident parent in accessing their children when there is a legitimate case for that access to occur. There is such a mix of human emotions and human circumstances. I think we have probably seen every mix there could be. It is an extremely traumatic situation for everyone involved, and my aim in assisting any of these constituents is to ensure that whatever influence I can bring will mean that they do what is best for their children. At the end of the day, the needs of the child simply must come first. I would like to quote part of article 3 from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child:

1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

2. States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.

In conclusion, I want to very briefly mention and commend the work done by all of the committees in this House, basically since the CSA came into being. There has been the Parkinson committee, which was a task force set up by government. Before that there was the committee chaired by Kay Hull and deputy chaired by the member for Fowler. Before that I understand there were committees under the chairmanship of the current opposition whip and many others, all of whom have put an enormous amount of effort into trying to untangle the emotions of this issue as much as possible. We have now got to the point where we have this piece of legislation, the majority of which we very strongly support. I commend all of that back work, because that is the basis upon which we stand this legislation today.

See this speech in context