Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support and Family Assistance Technical Amendments) Bill 2024 comes about by virtue of a decision of the Federal Court. Section 53(1)(c) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act, as inserted by the Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Act 2018, prevented the Child Support Registrar from making an interim period determination whenever a previous care determination was revoked under other sections of the Child Support (Assessment) Act. Effectively what this really meant was that it severely limited the circumstances where an interim period determination could be made, as a determination would in most circumstances require the revocation of an earlier determination. Practically this means that we're trying to restore the situation as it was before.

One of the key aspects in any type of child support or child maintenance situation is that both parents have a responsibility in terms of care of their children, but also they have a responsibility financially. That doesn't mean to say that the parents equally pay for the child's financial needs. It must be equitable. This depends on people's financial circumstances, their assets and a whole range of other factors. If you're not happy with a child support determination, under section 117(2) of the Child Support (Assessment) Act appeals can be made and reviews can be done, where it's just and equitable and otherwise proper, having regard to any factors in that subsection, to vary the child support assessment.

This is the unintended consequence of a decision and some faulty drafting that happened in 2018. We do not want parents to benefit in terms of family tax payments and child support by contravening court orders. The concept of an interim period can often last, depending on the circumstances, up to 52 weeks, but it does allow and has allowed the registrar in the circumstances to not benefit that person that does the wrong thing. What we're trying to do is restore that situation here so that orders and agreements that are put in place can be fulfilled. It is about reducing litigation and making sure that people do not benefit from doing the wrong thing.

Part VII of the Family Law Act makes quite clear the responsibilities of parents. Children have a right to know and be cared for by both parents, regardless of the marital status of their parents. But children have a right also to be protected from domestic and family violence and abuse and neglect. But they have other rights also. Parents need to take responsibility. It's clear in determining parenting decisions and in part VII of the Family Law Act that courts take into consideration how parents respond, not just in caring for children but whether they meet their financial needs. Children need a lot of financial support. It's commonly thought that a child needs about $1 million to support them through to the age of 18. When I was practising as a family lawyer, parents who were the payers were often surprised when I would show them the Lovering or Lee tables, which were updated from time to time to the CPI et cetera, to indicate the real cost of caring for children. I said: 'Imagine just how much you'd pay if that child were living with you. You'd be putting your hand in your pocket all the time.'

This is a technical amendment we're making today, but it really does have an important aspect to it, a good social policy aspect. It prevents parents who are doing the wrong thing from benefiting. I remember when I first started practising in this jurisdiction. People would have to bring applications for child maintenance, as it was in those days, to the court. Put yourself in the situation where you're a mother or a father and the other party is not paying you child maintenance. You're not likely to have a lot of money hanging around to pay a lawyer—particularly a CBD lawyer like me in Brisbane—to bring your case in the Magistrates Court. So the amount of child maintenance that was being paid was very, very low, and parents were evading their obligations massively.

Ex-nuptial children—children born outside of wedlock—had a different situation than those children born in marital situations, and eventually, through cooperative federalism, we got to the situation where children were being treated the same way, and the Child Support Agency, the Child Support (Assessment) Act and the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act came into force. It was a landmark reform.

Not everyone is happy with the assessments and determinations made in terms of child support. But, if you ask any parent, they all know they've got to financially support their children. It is sad, in my experience, that parents don't often take regard of the fact that the person they loved, cared for and lived with still has the same degree of affection, love, compassion and decency in caring for their children notwithstanding the marital and relationship status between those two parents. We've got to make sure that we are child focused not just in our legislation but in our decision-making.

This particular act that we will bring in through this bill today is a good act. It's an act of good public policy. It does make a technical amendment, but it fixes up a mistake of the previous government. I want to make it clear at the outset that we—and I think it's a bipartisan position across the chamber and the crossbench as well—should be and are committed to the child support scheme being fair and equitable in this country and to ensuring that adequate and fair financial support is provided to all children, regardless of the marital and relationship status of their parents. The child support scheme was brought in by the Hawke government in 1988. It changed that concept from child maintenance to child support. It does have review provisions, as I alluded to before, and if people are unhappy with that there's always that review process through the AAT arrangements. There are also internal review processes.

I would encourage parents in my electorate and elsewhere to fulfil their financial obligations to their children. It costs a lot to feed and clothe your children and to make sure that those kids get the best chance in life, whether it's through sport or cultural pursuits, so they're not disadvantaged or in any way adversely affected by being embarrassed that they can't afford certain shoes or go to school excursions and the like. There are 1.2 million parents who have a child support arrangement in place for about a million children. When you consider that we have about 27 million people in Australia, that's a large percentage. Last financial year, there were $3.7 billion in child support payments transferred between 1.3 million parents for 1.1 million children.

This is not some oblique or opaque issue. This affects Australians every day. Most Australians don't commit criminal offences. Most Australians don't get involved in car accidents. Most Australians aren't injured at work. But so many Australians are separated from their partners and have children in situations where they once were in relationships of love and affection but find themselves separated, unfortunately, because of whatever circumstance, and they're single. We want to make sure that there are accurate and timely child support payments, and that's critical for the families' and those children's financial security, irrespective of the marital or relationship status of parents. We must take seriously the responsibility to ensure the scheme is effective in the assessment and review process.

As I say, the government last year was aware of the fact that there was a problem as a result of the decision I alluded to before and that the previous government had basically messed it up. We're fixing up a mistake of theirs. In my experience it happens quite commonly that there's a legislative drafting error and a decision was made that results in us having to bring forward another bill to correct that error. The bill reinstates the intended operation of the interim period provisions by clarifying the circumstances in which they can apply, and that's really important. As I say, this is a technical amendment. It clarifies the circumstances where those provisions apply, and it will make sure there's no uncertainty.

Child support payments and family tax benefit entitlements are based on a parent's percentage of care for a child. Ordinarily, this is based on their actual care. Whether there's a written care agreement in place for a child, such as a child order, a parent's percentage of care is based on that written care arrangement for an interim period. That's important. It's important to encourage compliance with those written care agreements. In my experience, nothing frustrates more parents than circumstances where you've got a court order in place and the other parent contravenes that. It results in contravention orders, often with contravention proceedings taking place. Therefore, there are consequential implications for child support. There's no way in the world that it's in children's best interests to have their parents fighting, in or out of litigation, because they can't agree on certain aspects of care.

Interim periods prevent a parent who is withholding care of a child from benefiting financially through higher child support payments and FTB payments. They ensure that the other parent is not financially worse off through what we're doing. Importantly, there are existing rules to protect parents and children at risk of family and domestic violence, and they will continue to apply. This means that, if an arrangement has changed due to fear of violence, Services Australia is able to ensure that child support and FTB payments are based on actual care and that the parent at risk of violence will receive an appropriate amount of financial support.

Interim periods are not permanent and can only apply for a period of up to 52 weeks to strike an appropriate balance when things can change, litigation can take place and contravention proceedings can happen. This reflects the key principle of the child support scheme, which must always be in the best interests of the children, where parenting orders are made, parenting arrangements are made for the children and child support is paid. The best interests of the children must be the paramount consideration. That is, indeed, our international obligation. That is reflected in the Family Law Act. It is also reflected in the child support legislation.

For the interim period to apply, the person with reduced care must take reasonable steps to comply with that care arrangement. In other words, they need to take steps to bring litigation—for example, trying to work out with the other parent to reinstate care arrangements, either through their lawyers or through their personal relationship; communicating with each other; seeking assistance through a dispute resolution service; starting legal proceedings; or notifying the police that the child has been taken without consent. It can be a lengthy and expensive process, and that is why there is a 52-week provision. Where they have done so, these orders can be made to reflect the court's decision about what is in the best interests of the children. The orders should be followed unless special circumstances exist. Importantly, existing rules will continue to apply to protect parents and children at risk of violence. If the care arrangements are due to fear of violence and neglect, Services Australia can take steps to make sure they don't apply.

This is an important clarification provision. It's in the best interests of children. It restores past decisions made since 2018 and is in line with the intended policy to make sure these arrangements do not benefit—to put it in colloquial terms—'the bad parent', who contravenes the order, and 'the good parent' doesn't suffer. It's important that we do this.

We've made other changes in child support and family law. These amendments build on the Albanese government's legislation that came in on 1 July 2023 to make sure the system is fairer by improving the timely collection of child support owed to parents and helping prevent future debt among low-income parents. These changes were intended to address the still outstanding and disgraceful situation where there is a staggering $1.69 billion in the child support debt pool that has accrued over the last 35 years. That's an indictment on us as a country. I would encourage all parents to do the right thing by their children.

We must be very mindful of the difficult financial circumstances and cost-of-living pressures. Nothing impoverishes people more than marital separation or relationship separation. Living in two separate households costs a lot more, and we know it does, but think of the children. I would encourage people to think of the children, what they're entitled to and how it's in their best interests that they continue to be supported.

In the 2023-24 budget, we committed $5.1 million over five years for a package of reforms to implement the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System to improve the scheme over a long time. We've established the Child Support Stakeholder Consultation Group, which provides feedback to government on policy and service delivery. Looking ahead, we're looking to build on the evidence base for longer-term improvements to child support.

The system is not perfect, as anyone who deals with the system knows, but it's a lot better than it was before 1988. If anyone is not happy with any decision, I would encourage them to seek a review of that decision. The system is by no means perfect, but it's a lot better than we had before.

In conclusion, the government has a responsibility to ensure the system promotes the best interests of children and is informed by people's real-life experience. We know there's more work to do to make sure this child support system is fit for purpose. I can assure the parliament that the best interests of children will always be the paramount consideration as far as I am concerned, and I think that should be the policy of this country—that we look at the best interests of children, whether it's in decision-making by the courts, decision-making by parents or decision-making in relation to child support agency arrangements; this should always continue.

See this speech in context