Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation (Further Election Commitments and Other Measures) Bill 2011 in principle. Its basic tenants are sound. I do, however, need to point out that there are major issues in relation to child support assessments, which we will come to shortly.

In relation to the family tax benefit advance, we in this House must recognise that there are times when people simply have nothing. There are times when there is simply no money, nowhere to live and no food in the pantry. We must be there to support people in these predicaments, which more often than not are not of their making. There will be times when bonds need to be paid or there is an unexpected medical expense which cannot be covered. It is right that we extend this advance to people at such times as this.

I will just add a tail to that by saying that we—I mean the staff at Centrelink et cetera—must be very clear, when people are availing themselves of this service, that the money will need to be repaid. That is where the arguments can start. We have all been assaulted by people complaining about the staff at Centrelink not telling them this or that. I know that in my office, when we consult with staff at government departments, invariably we hear that the process has been explained, and in great detail. It is just that when someone is desperate for money they listen to nothing except the 'sign here' part.

I am proud of the level of service provided by Townsville Centrelink office and those officers dealing directly with people in need in my city. I have made the point previously that you never see anyone coming back to Centrelink saying, 'Thank you; my benefits were paid on time and they were exactly what you were promising.' The staff here often see people only when, in the clients' eyes, there is crises. This is where it gets tough for the staff. It is such a tense time for people on benefits. Most people do not want to be on them, and most people who need them are under the pump when they come into Centrelink. Half the time of an interview is taken up with getting the client to calm down so that the process can be explained. I would like to see continued training in customer service levels. We must move our public servants towards what everyone relates to as the McDonald's service mentality, where every person is greeted with a level of enthusiasm. Customer service is at the heart of this. Too often—and we are all guilty of this—the next client pays for the attitude of the previous client. It does not matter if the previous client has sworn at them and called them names; it is not the fault of the next person in the queue. We must attract professionals and recognise that this role is vital in limiting conflict all the way down the street and even back to people's homes.

The thing about debt is that once it starts to accumulate, especially where low income is concerned, there seems to be little or no chance of people getting back on top of it until someone eventually comes along and puts a stop to it. That is a very hard thing to do, but by far the biggest issue facing families and budgets is the issue of child support. I am sure that I speak for the majority of members in this House when I say that child support is the No. 1 issue where people go to see their local member as a last resort. Certainly it is the case in my electorate. The problem is that you could be seeing the ex-husband immediately before the ex-wife. They will tell their stories to the best of their ability and there will not be a similar thread amongst them. Every family has one party being robbed blind while the other party sits at home spending the money on cigarettes and tattoos and not on the children. We all see them every week. I feel for them. I tell them they do not like the laws of speeding, which are black and white—no argument. If you are doing 101 kilometres per hour in a 100 zone you are speeding. The laws around child support and children in general are varying shades of grey. One side will say that the CSA is robbing them blind while the other will say that it is belting the ex up with a feather. The CSA cannot win no matter what happens, and the amendment to the legislation to determine taxable income when a tax return has not been lodged by using previous taxable income and indexing it will produce similar results to the mess we currently find ourselves in.

The fight in which parents are engaged and the children at the centre of that fight can be about making the other side pay. It can be about power in the relationship. It can be about jealousy. It can even be about the children. I do not mean to be flippant about this, but, when you have someone sitting in your office with their children telling you just how bad the other parent is and colouring it quite significantly, it makes you wonder what they are saying at home. A constituent came to me who felt that he was trapped by a woman. He said that he barely knew her and she did not even know where he lived, and yet he is faced with the CSA taking his pay for a child he did not want and does not want to see, to a woman whose last name he did not even know. Still, there is a child involved.

Using the last taxable income figure and indexing it is just too long a bow to draw. Circumstances change so much and this is just not fair to anyone. I would question why people do not complete their tax returns, although I know there are a number of obvious reasons why they do not, but I do believe that the CSA should not be put in the position of making arbitrary decisions. Too often, the hands of the CSA are tied.

I have a friend who left the matrimonial home. He is now 52 years old and has just signed a 25-year mortgage on a one-bedroom unit. His ex-wife sold the family home for over $1 million and has no debt. As each of their three children reached 18 you would think his payments would decrease, but his ex-wife successfully argued that he actually had more available cash and therefore could afford to pay more. Anyone who has a teenager knows that when they hit 18 you are only beginning to make the payments. Yet, as much as he argued the point, the decision was never changed. He always had to stump up more money.

I always say that, when you are talking to parents who are divorced, there are three sides to the story: her side, his side and the truth. The problem with this amendment and the act in general is that they do not and cannot take into account every variable. What we in this House have to do is support the CSA with a framework around which they can work.

I have been asked on a number of occasions by constituents to fully review the child support mechanisms as the level of discontent is just so great. Mind you, we must always keep in mind that no-one is beating a path to the door of their federal member to tell them that they feel they are paying the right amount of support and that the money is being used correctly. More's the pity. There has to be a place where people can go when the going gets too tough. The appeals process now leaves both sides angry and bewildered. There has to be a place where a couple, or their representatives—although I would prefer it if legal representatives were not used—can go to discuss and conciliate a result in front of a panel of some sort. Even if you do come out with the same decision, at least you have been heard. What we are hearing now is that people are just not being heard.

This story will, again, not be new to members. A couple have split. One or both have new partners and new children. The ex-wife has a new baby and therefore is not working at present. The ex-husband is told to pay more maintenance for his children, even though his ex-wife's partner, who knew about the children and walked into the relationship, is working in a high-paid job. The ex-husband has a new wife and a new child, but seemingly this does not matter; he just has to pay more.

Who wins in this argument? I do not know the answer to that question, but I can tell you who does not win—the children of the first marriage, who have done nothing wrong. Their expectation is to be housed, fed and educated by parents who love them. Unfortunately, the current method makes too many parents look at the children as pieces of property and millstones around the current domestic arrangements. For the sake of the children, there must be an appeal process where one party can go and explain their case and have it heard with empathy. For the sake of the Child Support Agency officers there must be an empathetic final tribunal where parents who feel they have been hard done by can have a say on their future and where all the facts are presented.

I am the parent of three children whose ages range from nine to 18 years. I know firsthand the costs involved in raising children and about the entire grey area that is family law. There is no section of law that has had more inspection, review and attempts at improvement. I support what we are trying to achieve here, but I just think we have to give parents a forum where they can feel they are being listened to. That is what it gets down to when you are a parent sitting in an electoral office with someone who has had a CSA problem. What they want is to feel that they have been listened to—that they have had a forum. We owe it to our people in the field, the CSA officers, to not make them the final front.

See this speech in context