Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise to support the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Amendment Bill 2011. These are two common-sense sets of amendments to what is often a difficult and fraught area of social policy—namely, the collection of moneys from the separated parent who has obligations to provide financial support for their children through the Child Support Program.

The first cluster of amendments in the bill allows the Child Support Registrar to delegate some powers and functions to non-government or external service providers. Obviously, those will be carefully vetted and expert in their functioning. Most specifically this could mean, for example, that outstanding child support payments could be collected using specialists in debt collection. Given that there is a serious problem for the supported parent and children when child support payments are not made or are very late, it is hoped that there will be better and more timely rates of child support moneys collected using specialists or expertise drawn from the private sector.

There are already a number of other agencies, such as Centrelink, who use specialists when it comes to debt collection. The outsourcing of money collection to specialists in the field should also give the child support agencies more time to focus on their core business. We would hope that that core business includes how to maintain everything in the best interests of the child and, in particular, how to ensure that relationships between parents are not causing a great deal of stress—more than is necessary—to the children.

The second group of amendments in this bill relates to some criminal provisions under the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988. In some circumstances, an employer is required to withhold an amount from the paying parent's salary, or wages, on behalf of the Child Support Agency. The current wording of the act is ambiguous and leaves some questions about whether the offence is created by an act or omission. The proposed amendments will make it absolutely clear that an offence is committed by an employer if he or she fails to undertake certain actions as directed by the CSA—for example, the withholding of an employee's salary or the remission of those moneys to the Child Support Agency. Of course, those moneys are then directed to the needs of the children.

Both these clusters of amendments are aimed at ensuring children are properly supported by their separated parents. The coalition therefore supports these amendments. But we are not saying that is the end of the business when it comes to best practice in ensuring that, after separating parents go their different ways, their children's needs are best met. There are other concerns about the integrity of the Child Support Program. For example, electorate offices like mine are regularly contacted by distressed parents who claim that their ex-partners have declared no income or that they are unemployed after they have left their salaried employment or have converted their salaried employment to 'work for cash' payments or to some in-kind payment instead of a salary. This leaves the supporting partner with considerably reduced or no liabilities, according to the law. The CSA needs to be more proactive in investigating any such allegations to ensure that these practices do not occur and that the children are not the victims of a further failure by an obligated parent to support the children.

In some occupations, for example the Defence Reserves, the income earned is tax free. So, again, a supporting parent may appear to have no capacity to help pay for their children's upkeep—that is, no salary or income officially—but, in fact, they are earning. There is also often contention and arguments surrounding what is claimed to be just or affordable when one or both parents repartner and have more children in a new family. These not uncommon complications can lead to great distress that affects the original children's sense of wellbeing or even their capacity to have a properly funded education, clothing or health services provided. The CSA must have the appropriate legislative tools and information to ensure that all children's needs remain the focus of government actions.

Unfortunately, there is also a not uncommon problem where a grandparent—and it is almost always the grandmother—is supporting and maintaining children after the parents' relationship has broken down. Supporting parent benefits or Child Support Agency payments are not necessarily automatically diverted to the children being cared for or being raised in the grandparent's household. The grandparent is often reluctant to report her need for financial support to the CSA or to Centrelink because she knows that she may do so at the expense of her daughter's direct payments and this daughter may in fact threaten to relocate the children back into a very unstable or unsatisfactory environment rather than see her parenting payments diverted to the real carer, the grandmother.

These are just some of the very complex problems and difficulties associated with ensuring children are always the best served by our systems and legislation. We also have to make sure that the supporting parents are best able to make decisions and are able to afford to meet the needs of their children as they grow. It is therefore very unfortunate that funding for family relationship centres and services and marriage guidance counselling was cut in this budget by some $50 million. We see that as very short sighted. Quite obviously it is better to help parents sort out relationship difficulties before they lead to a separated situation, with children's needs then having to be met in two separate households. We are very concerned about that loss of some $50 million, and we ask that this government reconsider that budget action.

In relation to the bill under discussion, we support these two clusters of amendments and we ask that the government not take its eye off this issue of how to best ensure children's financial needs are met by separated parents. There is certainly a lot of unfinished business in this most complex area of social policy and legislation.

See this speech in context