Emma Husar (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2017. I thank the member for Jagajaga for the work that she does in this area. Everybody's children come first, no matter what their circumstances are, no matter what postcode they're born in and no matter what parents they end up with. But it's imperative that we encourage parents to keep their children's wellbeing at the forefront of any discussion when parental payments are being negotiated. It's easily said but much harder to do. We must put the needs of children first and assist separated parents to determine how children and their needs will be cared for, and the supportive arrangements around that.

Labor supports the bulk of the proposed changes in schedule 1 of this legislation. According to the department, 1.3 million parents contribute to their children's welfare through the child support program. This supports 1.1 million children in this country who, through no fault of their own, are impacted emotionally, financially, physically and in a whole range of other areas. These children do not need their respective parents to make them suffer, and suffer through financial hardship. Our children deserve the very best that we can offer them. Although parents may be separated physically, we know that their children should never be, or are never, far from their minds. But, that said, the responsibility of caring for and supporting their development is not only emotional but also financial. And this is where it starts to get a bit tricky.

All parents enter into the parental contract at the start, during the child's conception, and should always be there throughout that child's life. It's a lifetime commitment that will continue long after the children become adults. The Child Support Scheme ensures that parents who do not live with their children because of separation do what's right and make financial contributions towards that child's upbringing. Whilst some may say that the Child Support Scheme is based on the principles of parental responsibility for the financial wellbeing of the child, the reality is that financial responsibility should always be at the forefront of raising children in separated families. We know that the rates of poverty are much higher in separated families, and it is everybody's responsibility to ensure that this doesn't happen. This is a responsibility that is shared and is not abrogated by separation. We need to allow for adequate support for children based on the payers' income, self-support amount and the percentage of that income assessed on the basis of a fair amount that any parent would contribute in an intact family. We recognise that everybody's financial circumstances differ, and we take into account the parents' financial position and also the percentage of care. Again, the best interests of the child or children involved must be paramount.

Labor recognises that child support payments and the system are not perfect. They are absolutely far from perfect. But the system provides a framework to administer and transfer child support payments based on formulated assessment and agreement or court-ordered register with the Child Support Agency. On this side, I guess that we would hope that people—adults—in this situation would be able to work out those payments in the best interests of their children, without the need for Child Support or the Family Court to intervene. But we know that that's just not the case. We know that a huge number of families end up on the wrong side of this argument, and it is a great shame on this country—and a bad reflection on those parents involved—that they do not do the right thing by their children. Their children become collateral damage, and it is left to us to decide and determine the outcomes.

The Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs conducted the inquiry into the child support program and delivered their report From conflict to cooperation in June 2015. That was before my time here, but I thank them for their work, having read over it. It is a shame to see that only three of the 25 recommendations made by that committee have actually been implemented or are being looked at being implemented, almost three years down the track, when we do have those families in conflict and those children that are relying on us to make those decisions for them because the grown-ups in their lives just can't do it. I think that that is a poor response.

Labor agreed with the recommendations from the report, including the recommendation that:

… the Australian Government review the Child Support Program to ensure the adequacy of calculated amounts and equity of the program for both payers and payees …

Our difficulty is with the equity of the possibly punitive measures that could impact adversely on recipients of deemed overpayments that would cause a debt to be made to the other parent. That obviously has the potential to impact more women than men who have a debt and where repayments are to be made through no fault of their own. The inquiry's recommendations into the child support program stated:

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government amend legislation to enable a greater period of time before determining when to adjust the amount of child support payable in interim care determinations. The Committee considers that the current fourteen week period, after which Department of Human Services changes the child support payable to reflect the care taking place at that time, does not provide sufficient time for relevant legal proceedings to be completed or for prior agreed arrangements to be enforced by a court or for revised arrangements to be agreed upon. The best interests of the child must be paramount in any amendment made.

Interim care arrangements must be designed to allow parents the time to sort out the care arrangements and resolve disputes over care. This involves more families that are affected by family violence than not. Fourteen weeks is not always long enough to resolve disputes over care that may be required through dispute resolution or legal proceedings, which are impacted by the Family Court. The current Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs handed down a report at the end of last year saying the same thing: the delays in the Family Court system are impacting parents' ability to raise their children and support them financially.

Labor supports the amendments to the interim periods to make the system much more flexible than it is now in order to meet the needs of children and parents who are sharing custody and those in high-conflict situations. As the shadow minister Jenny Macklin said, we are concerned that child support recipients who have received child support payments in good faith will unexpectedly owe debts, having already spent the money on care for their child. Child support payments are not for parents to do what they will with. They generally support keeping a roof over a child's head and food on the table, as well as the provision of school uniforms and the ability to go on school excursions. They are not for parents to do what they will with. Anybody who thinks that's what happens in a single-parent household is certainly mistaken and needs to take a look into what it is like to raise children in a single-parent family.

The child support assessments can be varied in the next financial year if an income tax assessment is incorrect. The inadequacies of the childcare payment system need to be addressed and, in particular, this section of the bill needs to be further investigated for the potential impacts of the changes. Retrospective assessments and adjustments could create large and unexpected debts for parents. This is problematic. It absolutely places further psychological and financial burdens on people struggling already to cope with the breakdown of any relationship, and it creates a burden on recipients of child support payments. Until this is addressed, we have advised the government that we will reserve our final position on this bill. There needs to be a method to collect overpayments—absolutely—but there is the concern that these proposed changes will adversely affect the payee and create a debt where money received has been spent in good faith.

It is designed to place a burden of guilt on the primary carer—male or female—who will, on top of everything else, need to second-guess their former partner's previous and current financial circumstances. People need certainty, not disruption, and less financial hardship. Any changes to the child support program need to reflect the sensitivity of cases where domestic and family violence is involved. This is especially relevant to the psychological impacts and also where the abuse has been financial. We are now doing a much better job as a society in recognising all types of family violence, and this needs to also be reflected in the policies we're making. The child support program must not be an ongoing tool for further abuse. The Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs have looked into the same and we know it is currently happening to many families across this country.

Also in the Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2017 is the immunisation part to consider. I believe immunisations are absolutely effective and they save lives. It's estimated that vaccines currently save three million lives each year worldwide. We know that before vaccines were discovered—long before I was a twinkle in my mother's eye—infectious diseases killed many, many adults and children worldwide. The programs that we have now provide for a safe and efficient way to prevent the spread of many, many diseases that cause serious illness, hospitalisation and, occasionally, death.

Major vaccination campaigns in the 1960s and 1970s saw diseases like tetanus, diphtheria and whooping cough almost eradicated in this country. Due to the miracle of vaccinations, it is now extremely rare to die from these diseases. Vaccinations safeguard the health of our kids, which is important to all of us—and, if it's not, it should be. Labor support the No Jab, No Play component of the legislation. We know that immunisation programs are best for our kids to ensure their safety and stop the spread of communicable diseases like polio, smallpox and measles. If enough people in the community are immunised, the infection can no longer be spread from person to person and we can kill off the disease altogether—for example, as in the case of smallpox. Smallpox was officially declared eradicated in 1980—also the year I was born—after a concerted campaign of surveillance and vaccination led by the World Health Organization. I am incredibly grateful that they stamped that out before I arrived. A similar campaign by the Global Polio Eradication Initiative has succeeded in reducing polio cases, with only a few isolated cases remaining in the developing world. I would also like to place on the record my thanks to Rotary International for the work that they do in eradicating polio.

In 2014, the World Health Organization declared that Australia had eliminated measles but not eradicated it. Measles is highly contagious and is spread in the air through coughing or sneezing by someone who is unwell with the disease. Measles can be imported from overseas where the disease is prevalent, which is why it is so important to have the herd immunity effect. We know that sufficient levels of vaccinations create an effective barrier to disease transmission if the disease is found in unvaccinated pockets. Vaccines mean less disease and considerably fewer deaths. Vaccines allow our bodies to produce an immune response without suffering the symptoms of the disease. These immunisations are based on provable science. The benefits to our communities are immeasurable, and their health is our primary concern.

Children need to be immunised against hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, influenza, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, pneumococcal, chickenpox and meningococcal C. There are school vaccination programs for a whole bunch of things. I am very proud when my kids come home from school and they've participated in one and got their stamp of approval. But not everyone can be vaccinated. Infants that are too young to be vaccinated rely on the herd immunity effect. This is even more reason for strong vaccination numbers in our community—to protect those kids who are really vulnerable and stop the spread of bacteria and viruses.

We have high immunisation rates in this country. I condemned Senator Pauline Hanson at the time, and will continue to do so, for her unfounded comments around immunisations. As a parent, I know that no-one wants to see their child suffer through illness, especially an illness that is preventable through vaccination. I am particularly offended when I hear people link vaccines to autism. As a mother who has raised a child with autism and as a sister who has nursed her comatose sister through meningococcal disease, let me tell you: I would take the autistic child every single day over the one who almost died from a now almost preventable disease through a vaccine. People who spin myths and mistruths about what vaccinations can do to our community ought to be ashamed of themselves. In fact, it is a great shame that we didn't see the Prime Minister take more leadership at the time of Senator Hanson's comments—but I will continue my support for vaccines.

Since the beginning of 2016, parents of children under the age of 20 years have been required to have their children assessed as fully immunised for their age to be eligible to receive the family tax benefit part A end-of-year supplement. The bill changes the No Jab, No Pay policy to withhold approximately $28, or $2.02 per day, from family tax benefit part A fortnightly payments instead of withholding the end-of-year supplement where a child does not meet the vaccination requirements. If children are not fully immunised, there is the ability for parents and families to participate in the vaccination catch-up programs. This can easily be organised through the use of their Medicare card at their local healthcare provider. There will be a 63-day grace period to allow families time to catch up. If during this grace period they do not get a medical exemption or they do not participate in the catch-up, their payments will be reduced. Labor continues to support the No Jab, No Pay policy and the amendments proposed. Labor has and always will support families and their children no matter the circumstance, and I am proud to have stood here today and delivered my speech and my support for this.

See this speech in context