Chris Crewther (Dunkley, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased today to speak on the Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2017. This is particularly the case as a number of my constituents in Dunkley will be affected by these changes. It is an unfortunate reality that children are often stuck in the middle, not receiving full support from both of their biological when splits in families occur. It is not fair to expect parents to stay together in unhappy or what may be violent or dangerous situations. The welfare of the children in any family situation must take precedence wherever possible.

Our child support system in general is a good one. The premise that financial support from one parent assists in supplementing the custody and care of the other parent is fair. It works towards establishing a more stable environment for the children than otherwise. We have a responsibility in this place to ensure that safety nets and institutional measures are in place to ensure that no child slips through the cracks. The primary concern of all parents should be to ensure that their children have the greatest support, and where possible stability, to enable them to grow and learn in an environment that is conducive to their needs and aspirations—something I know well, having my own two-year-old daughter, as does my wife.

However, regrettably, this is not always the case. I'm absolutely a believer in small government. But the government is also in place to provide a safety net for those who are unable to provide for themselves and to provide opportunities for those who commit such time and dedication to care for children to ensure that they receive assistance from those who have a shared responsibility in also doing so. It is crucial to ensure that our child support institutions and legislation do that and can be implemented to secure the best outcomes for parents and children.

This legislation fills critical holes in existing legislation by making several amendments. Firstly, regarding child support amendments, it introduces a range of improvements to the processes and time periods over which changes to children's care arrangements are made. The extension of the interim period that applies for recently established court-ordered care arrangements should see positive changes to the transition of arrangements, providing incentives for the parent to increase their share of care of the children to participate and take an active role in family dispute resolution. Most parents who are involved in child support arrangements behave responsibly, but I have seen from discussions with a number of constituents that it is easier to get caught up in how things affect the individual and not just the child. It would be a positive outcome to bring all parties to the table wherever possible, and this legislation seeks to achieve better cooperation and thus better care for the children in question.

I have a number of examples of where these changes would have made a real difference to a number of my constituents. For example, my office has recently been dealing extensively with a person called Brett, a constituent of mine who lives in Frankston. Every case of family division and child support of course varies from situation to situation and is delicate in that no case is the same as another. However, aspects of Brett's case only emphasise the need for cooperation between the parents in order to achieve the best outcome for the children involved. In particular, an aspect of this legislation that would be of immense benefit to Brett is that it introduces provisions that will terminate or suspend the effect of a child support agreement if the person who was entitled to child support for a child under the agreement ceases to be an eligible carer of the child, when the person's percentage of care for the child falls below 35 per cent. In this example, Brett is the primary carer of four out of six children from his former marriage yet currently has to go through arduous processes through the court to receive child support from his ex-partner, despite being the parent with primary custody. We know that some parents may be in situations where they are unable to care for their child, and this does not penalise them. What we are doing is trying to ease the path for those who take on more responsibility, committing more time to care for their children in their custody, so that they don't then have child support arrangements overturned by courts when they are no longer accurately reflected in the care arrangements.

From 1 July this year, for these arrangements, as well as several other situations in which care arrangements change, child support agreements will be more fluid, in a way that more accurately reflects the modern reality, where lifestyles, circumstances, career paths and family arrangements change with many other factors. For agreements made before 1 July 2008 where at least one party did not receive independent legal advice, the agreement can be set aside by a court if it would be unjust and inequitable for the court not to do so. It would be absurd for new arrangements to continue to operate on outdated child support agreements. We want to encourage parents who may previously have had no care arrangements with their children to be able to share the care arrangements.

So I'm proud today to be supporting legislative changes that will make child support agreements and care arrangements more fair, more equitable and relevant to parents who commit so much time and financial support for their children. Many of the changes made to previous pieces of legislation through this bill are made with the intention of resolving inconsistencies with the objectives of the Child Support Scheme. I spoke earlier about the importance of child support, something with which I know all members of this House are in agreement. I stress that, through this legislation, we can fill some of these holes and make the scheme more seamless as parties to agreements transition to different stages of their lives. I would encourage my colleagues on both sides of the chamber to support this legislation with their votes and keep at the forefront of their mind that these changes, each different measure and requirement, are all with the aim of improving the system, which is there to look after children, who often end up caught in the middle.

Another example from my electorate is from a person named Amanda. Amanda is a constituent of mine whom I have been engaged with since June last year. Amanda has been fighting the system for nine years. She experiences financial difficulties and struggles as a single mother yet does not receive sufficient child support payments from her child's father. As is so frequently the case, there are numerous claims and complications in this matter. As it is still unresolved, I will not presume to know all the answers but will continue to do all that I can to see the system improved. It is important to remember that there are always children involved in these situations, and it is their welfare and their support that is at stake when you delve to the heart of the matter. It is for them that we try to make family assistance and child support a more functional and fairer system for all. I sympathise with Amanda's situation and would very much like to see it resolved.

Should the changes to the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 and Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 succeed as laid down in this bill that we are debating today, we will be closer to a fairer and more functional system and may see a number of child support disputes cease as a result. This specific bill is a response to recommendations 8, 12 and 22 from the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs report From conflict to cooperation: Inquiry into the child support program. In responding to the recommendations of the committee, I am glad to be a part of the process to make our child support system more fair, more equitable and, ultimately, more supportive of the children. I look forward to continuing to work with constituents like mine, such as Brett and Amanda, to see their disputes resolved, and hope that through this legislation fewer situations like theirs arise.

I primarily wanted to discuss schedule 1 of this bill, as child support is something that is so topical and tends to cause a great deal of stress and therefore draws much attention amongst my constituents in Dunkley. But flying under the radar for those who are unaffected by it on a day-to-day basis are the family tax benefit amendments contained in schedule 2, which I briefly want to address. While the No Jab, No Pay policy pre-dates my time being here, it is something that I am proud to continue to represent. Schedule 2 of this bill changes the structure of penalties for families on income support payments who do not meet the requirements for their children's immunisations. We on this side of the House understand that families on income support are in this position because they are in need of the payments. However, the importance of keeping up to date with immunisations cannot be understated. Immunisation coverage rates for one- to five-year-olds at June 2017 had reached more than 93 per cent, nearing the critical level of 95 per cent needed to provide what's known as herd immunity. It is important that all children who can receive immunisations do so to protect and cover those who can't, so that children who are allergic to vaccine ingredients are still surrounded by children who are immunised, leaving no chance that they may contract an illness that may be debilitating to their health and development.

The Turnbull coalition government proposes that, rather than withholding the family tax benefit part A end-of-year supplement, approximately $28 per child will be withheld from their fortnightly family tax benefit part A payment instead to provide a constant emphasis on immunisation requirements rather than risking the need to be silent for 51 weeks of the year. I must stress however that the value of the reduction is the same as is currently imposed on families whose children do not meet immunisation requirements but will operate in a timelier manner than the existing measures. Reducing fortnightly payments rather than withholding the supplement at the end of the year, as is currently the policy, will serve as a regular reminder to parents to have their children's immunisation requirements up to date. We have seen that, since our government introduced the No Jab, No Pay policy on 1 January 2016, immunisation rates across Australia have increased across all three target groups of one-, two- and five-year-olds. Following the introduction of these policies, more than 210,000 families have been incentivised to immunise their children, demonstrating that these compliance measures are indeed effective.

There are a number of subtle but important measures in this bill that will, with their implementation, go some distance to improving the health and wellbeing of children and families. One of the Turnbull coalition government's longstanding priorities is to support families. Through this legislation, we are committed to improving financial support in the case of separated families and maintaining resistance to serious illnesses by incentivising families to vaccinate their children where possible. I have thrown my support behind these measures, as previous measures have demonstrated that we still have some distance to go in seeing the child support system and children's health checks achieving the outcomes we would like. But, with the changes contained in this bill, we will be a few steps closer than we were before.

See this speech in context