Peter Andren (Calare, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I only have a few concluding remarks to make on the Child Support Legislation Amendment (Reform of the Child Support Scheme—Initial Measures) Bill 2006. As I was saying prior to question time, the two words that I can recall and have seen over the last decade in relation to child support matters would be anger and frustration—on both sides of the equation, from what we once called the custodial and the non-custodial parents almost equally. That anger and frustration was around the issue of the formula that has been used to determine the payments. In the eyes of the nonresidential parents, it is about the proper use of that money. Anger and frustration from residential parents comes from the non-payment ruses that many partners get up to, and indeed the use of devices such as apprehended violence orders to deny access to parents, legitimate access in many cases that I have seen.

Over that period we have seen some welcome reforms. We are seeing more in the bill today and we will see others in the coming months. Amongst that future legislation are some cuts in child support for resident parents. But those will be balanced by the elimination of things like the requirement to split family tax benefits with former partners, unless the care is shared almost equally. In addition, under the proposed legislation that we are yet to consider, for those non- or minimal-paying parents who arrange their financial affairs so they can ostentatiously drive their Mercedes around town or have a holiday home but who do not pay themselves a wage—I have seen and heard of plenty of circumstances like that—a wage will be deemed and that person will be regarded as having earned income.

Finally, while I must commend the Child Support Agency staff with whom my office deals, with whom I have contact, I welcome the improved training and increased staffing promised in these changes, along with the more intensive case management for difficult cases. Communication between the Child Support Agency and clients at so stressful a time is absolutely essential once the communication between parents has often irretrievably broken down. With those words I commend this bill to the House.

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased with many of the comments that we have received. I thank all honourable members who have participated in this debate on the Child Support Legislation Amendment (Reform of the Child Support Scheme—Initial Measures) Bill 2006. This is one of the most challenging issues we have dealt with in government. I think all members of parliament and senators would agree that, when you are dealing with breakdown in relationships—I think it was the opposition whip who used to say this to me—you are dealing with such high emotions that it does not get any more challenging for the people directly involved, their wider families and members of parliament.

As a new MP in 1996 the overwhelming majority of people whom I was seeing in my electorate office at that time were people who were suffering. I see the member for Calare nodding; we all came in together. With a change of government—and it is not a reflection on the change of government at all—people thought, ‘Here’s another chance. I’m going to have my case heard; I’ve been wronged all these years.’ They would pour in. Time after time we got this overwhelming, heartfelt pain that people were feeling.

In those 10 years, far from the government doing nothing, there has been a lot done. I think the opposition has come a long way with us on that. There was a time when there were a number of people in the opposition who resisted change. I really welcome the current members of parliament and senators who have worked constructively as part of various committees in formulating positions that today are being widely supported both in this place and outside in the wider community.

I should point out to the House and to the Australian public that the report by Professor Parkinson does not make everyone a winner. It actually looks at the cost of raising children. It looks at the principles that underpin families—that is, trying to have shared relationships and building relationships—when the fundamental relationships have broken down, so that children are not hurt.

This is not about picking winners. It is not about saying a dad is better than a mum, or a parent who stays with the children has some rights more than a parent who is no longer the custodial or resident parent. It is about asking: how can we make the system, which is challenging, difficult and heartfelt, more equitable for everyone, but particularly the children?

These measures, which have been outlined more than adequately by members of both sides of the House today, are the first tranche of a three-stage process that the Howard government has undertaken to fundamentally change this system to recognise that children are first and foremost our priority, underpinning that by acknowledging the real cost of raising children. One of the measures here today, which will reduce the amount of money that some resident parents will receive because the nonresident parent has a very high income, is actually not going to disadvantage the child, because, in knowing what the costs of raising children are, we are still ensuring that those children will receive more per child than the actual cost of raising them.

It is good to see people recognising that someone who is a nonresidential spouse has and feels that they have lost so much when they lose contact with the children on a day-to-day basis. It is very hard for them. But they very much resent it when they see the money they are providing for the welfare of their biological children being spent by their former partners on things that they do not believe add value to those children’s lives and when they are actually aiding and abetting the lifestyle of the former partner as opposed to the welfare of the child.

There are a number of schedules to the bill, and I will not go through them all again. I simply say that many people have contributed to this legislation. I single out the Chief Opposition Whip as one person who has campaigned on this issue since before my time in parliament. The member for Calare, as an Independent, certainly has been vocal on this issue in his 10 years in parliament. The members for Gilmore, Herbert and Hinkler have all been passionate advocates for change in this area, as was Larry Anthony, no longer in this place, who headed up committees inquiring into this issue. The member for Grey and I sat on one of the first informal committees of the Howard government inquiring into this issue.

We see this legislation as bringing far greater equity to people. It recognises that the past formula has not worked and that the imbalances it created were causing great difficulty for people. I thank very much all of the supporting family groups—in particular, the Lone Fathers Association, the lone mothers and the women’s groups—who have participated in so much of the work that has got us to this point. I also appreciate the support of the opposition. More importantly, I hope that parents and children will thank us into the future for the decisions that we have taken here today to implement this legislation and that they will enjoy better lives as a result of it.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Sydney has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.