Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Disability and Carers (House)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to briefly conclude my speech from before the Prime Minister's statement, I want to turn to schedule 1, part 3. Since 1 July 2008, parents entering into a binding child support agreement have been required to receive legal advice. Since that time, a court may only set aside a binding child support agreement where there are exceptional circumstances, and a failure to change the agreement will result in financial hardship. Parents who entered into binding child support agreements before 1 July 2008 did not have to have received legal advice but must now meet this requirement before the court can consider varying their child support agreement. This part makes it easier for agreements entered into before 1 July 2008 to be set aside or varied by courts. In addition, this part also allows for child support agreements to be terminated or suspended if the payee ceases to be an eligible carer. Currently, the payer is required to apply to the court for a termination or suspension of the agreement in this circumstance.

Turning to schedule 1 part 4, collection of overpayments, currently an overpayment of child support can only be recovered if the person who received the overpayment agrees to return the sum or if a court makes an order that the money should be repaid. The Child Support Agency cannot collect an overpayment from a recipient without a court order. This part alters the legislation so the Child Support Agency can collect overpayments on behalf of payers in the same way that it can collect arrears on behalf of payees. According to data provided at Senate estimates, approximately 86 per cent of child support recipients are female and 56 per cent of child support recipients also receive an income support payment from either Centrelink or the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Data provided at Senate estimates also shows the child support recipients have very low median incomes, ranging from around $22,195 in Tasmania to $42,225 in the ACT. Therefore, it's likely that those who are negatively affected by the collection of overpayments will be women who are already economically vulnerable. In contrast, almost one quarter—24 per cent—of active child support cases have arrears owing. The average amount of arrears is $5,800. These figures do not take into account any cases where the child is now over 18 but the paying parent still has arrears owing or any private collect arrangements where parents organise payment of child support between themselves. The implementation of this measure will need to be monitored to make sure that it does not further exacerbate inequities between payers and payees in the child support system. The changes to this bill only apply to overpayments which arise after the commencement of the act.

In summary, Labor strongly support the No Jab, No Pay policy. We do support changes to improve immunisation rates in the community, and that's why we support the amendments to No Jab, No Pay, as set out in this bill. However, we do have some concerns about the changes relating to amended tax assessments. We're concerned that child support recipients who have received child support payments in good faith will unfairly owe debts. That's why I've made representations to both the former minister and the new minister about this issue. We remain hopeful that in the Senate a compromise on the contentious amendment can be reached. I commend the bill to the House.

Chris Crewther (Dunkley, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2017. This bill does two things, and I'll speak to them in turn. It amends the child support program and strengthens the No Jab, No Pay policy. Both of the measures in this bill were announced in the 2017 budget.

I'll talk first about the amendments to the child support program. The Child Support Scheme was introduced by the Hawke government in 1988 and was designed to address the difficulties a parent could face when attempting to collect maintenance from the other parent. There were concerns at the time that women and children, particularly, were increasingly facing poverty after family separation. The government was increasingly bearing the cost of raising children when one parent was refusing to contribute to their own child's upkeep. The Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs conducted an inquiry in 2015 to report on the child support program. It was chaired by the member for Dawson and the deputy chair was the member for Newcastle. I was also a member of that committee. At the time of the inquiry, the Department of Social Services said 1.3 million parents were in the program and about 1.1 million children were covered by the scheme.

Child support is an emotive topic, as any member of the lower house would attest. This is understandable when the amount of support paid or received is directly linked to the amount of time spent with your children. It is also a gendered issue—90 per cent of receiving parents are female and 90 per cent of paying parents are male, perhaps bespeaking some other cultural barriers and prejudices in our society. The scheme was designed to make it simpler for the caring parent to receive child support from the other parent by giving the responsibility for collection and enforcement to the Australian Taxation Office. The tax office was also given responsibility for assessing the amount of child support to be paid. The responsibility for the administration of the Child Support Scheme has now been shifted to the Department of Social Services and delivery of the scheme to the Department of Human Services.

The social policy and legal affairs inquiry found that the Child Support Scheme works well in the majority of cases. I know that, as an MP, we often see people when it is not working. I understand that. The scheme supports the principle that both parents should contribute to raising their children through care and financial support. Assessments should reflect the realistic cost of raising children and a parent's actual capacity to pay. However, the committee made 25 recommendations to strengthen the scheme. This bill implements three of the recommendations of the committee report. Three out of 25 ain't good but, I guess it is better than nothing. As I've said, the amount of child support paid by a parent is calculated with regard to the amount of time the child spends with each parent. The nature of modern work means that parenting arrangements can change and can change quickly and, when they do, they are often contentious.

The first of these amendments provides for a greater period of time before a child support assessment is recalculated when there is a dispute about the care of the child. There is currently a 14-week limit imposed on interim determinations. The Family Court, sadly, is bogged down, with most matters taking much longer than 14 weeks to be finalised. Currently, the 14-week limit can mean that a parent's child support assessment may be increased just at the time they are trying to reach an agreement on their parenting arrangements. This amendment increases the interim period while one parent is actively trying to enforce their rights under a parenting order and is participating in dispute resolution processes.

The second of these amendments concerns child support agreements entered into between the parents. A binding child support agreement can be made pursuant to the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989. These agreements are similar in nature to a binding financial agreement made under the Family Law Act. Some might say the binding financial agreements are former Attorney-General George Brandis's only legacy to the Australian legal community—but I wouldn't be that unkind. These agreements require independent legal advice before a party can enter into such an agreement. In turn, they are difficult to set aside. Exceptional circumstances or a significant change in circumstances which have arisen since the agreement was made must be present before an agreement will be set aside.

However, there is an anomaly with binding child support agreements made before 1 July 2008. Those agreements were made without independent legal advice. The amendment that provided for independent legal advice was only implemented on 1 July 2008. Those agreements are currently still binding in the same way as binding child support agreements that were made after 1 July 2008 and have the benefit of independent legal advice. It is easy to see how this could disadvantage a party who has entered into a binding child support agreement between 1 July 2008 without having the benefit of legal advice and they now want to have that agreement set aside or amended. This bill will make it easier for parties to binding child support agreements made before July 2008 to have their agreements varied or set aside.

The third amendment in this bill that concerns child support is slightly more contentious. The amount of child support paid by a parent is assessed on a formula that uses the income of both parents—that is, each parent's income tax assessments. If a person's tax assessment has been amended, the child support assessment will have been calculated using the income from the original tax assessment but the child support assessment will actually not be varied until the next financial year—quite a time lag. This can lead to the actual child support being paid to the other parent being too high and causing distress to the payer or being too low and causing the parent in receipt of the child support to be under unnecessary financial stress and then obviously children can consequently suffer. This bill will allow a new assessment to be applied retrospectively so that the correct amount would have been paid for the previous year. Labor are concerned that this will lead to very large and unexpected debts for parents. We know the harm financial stress can cause to families. We know how important it is for parents to have some level of budget certainty so they can plan ahead for their families. Labor have raised these concerns about this part of the bill with the Turnbull-Joyce government and we will reserve on this final position on this part of the bill until this is addressed.

Having been a member of the committee that inquired into child support in 2015, I am pleased to see some of our recommendations being implemented. I heard in that committee the raw emotion those issues around child support evince in parents. When love turns to hate, sometimes logic and common sense fly out the window. Families who are in the child support assessment scheme often have issues with payments not being made, assessments being too high or assessments being too low. Those families feel the fallout of these problems every day—each time they go to the supermarket, each time they pay the school fees or buy school supplies and each time they get their pay cheque. Australia's Child Support Scheme is good, but it can be strengthened. That is what the committee reported and why we made 25 recommendations. Without carping too much, it is a little disappointing that it has taken over two years for the Turnbull-Joyce government to take any action on the report.

The second part of this bill amends and strengthens the No Jab, No Pay policy. I want to say up-front and loudly that I wholeheartedly believe in the importance of childhood immunisation. My mother was a nurse and she made sure that all 10 of her children were fully immunised against preventable diseases. My wife Lea, as an adult and despite being vaccinated as a child, contracted whooping cough when she had young children to cope with as well as a husband that went off to Canberra regularly. Having seen the impact that whooping cough had on Lea, an adult who had some level of immunisation, I can't imagine what it would be like watching your own baby suffering from whooping cough. You wouldn't wish it on your worst enemy. It is important that we do all we can to improve the immunisation levels of all our children. Children are our hopes distilled. We know that vaccination works. It has eradicated diseases already in our own lifetime—polio and smallpox.

It might be hard to imagine now, for younger Australians, but Australia faced an epidemic in the middle of the 20th century, recording the highest incidence of poliomyelitis—commonly called polio. Poliomyelitis is an ancient disease, first described in Britain in 1789, that has no cure and can leave its victims with devastating nerve damage, causing paralysis of the arms, legs and diaphragms. Ten thousand mainly young Australians and many children were contracting polio each year. In 1966, which is not that long ago—the year of my birth, in fact—the oral polio vaccine was introduced into Australia. And in 2000 Australia was declared polio free by the World Health Organization. The number of polio cases worldwide has decreased by more than 99 per cent, from 350,000 cases in 1988 to fewer than 420 in 2013.

Do not listen to the antivaxxers. We know vaccination works. Measles was claiming 2.6 million deaths each year before there was widespread vaccination available. The World Health Organization announced in 2014 that measles elimination had effectively been achieved by Australia. There is now no local strain of measles circulating in our community. Obviously we still get individual measles cases in the community that have been brought in by people travelling from countries where the disease is still prevalent. But by keeping a high level of vaccination coverage—protecting the herd—we can prevent measles outbreaks from occurring.

We know vaccination works. All sensible people who believe in empirical evidence know this for a fact. And we know that the way it works is through herd immunity. High levels of immunity in the Australian community make it difficult for disease to spread from person to person. It is the collective community of our population that is important. And it is the responsibility of all of us to make sure we continue to have that high level of immunity. The No Jab, No Pay policy was supported by Labor. This policy has bipartisan support. We know it works. Since the program commenced in 2015, about 200,000 families have initiated or updated their immunisation coverage. That is great news, but we must maintain our vigilance. The amendments in this bill will strengthen this policy. The current policy provides that parents whose child does not have their immunisation up to date will not be eligible to receive the family tax benefit part A end-of-year supplement. This policy holds no incentive for families whose income is above $80,000, as they don't receive the family tax benefit part A supplement.

So, this amendment will be fairer. All families whose child is not fully immunised in accordance with immunisation requirements will have approximately $28 a fortnight withheld from their family tax benefit part A. This new measure will come into effect from 1 July 2018. The new provisions will ensure that families are notified if their child's vaccinations are overdue, and there will be a 63-day grace period. That will ensure that the family is given time to update the child's immunisation. If the vaccinations are not updated within that 63-day grace period the reductions to the fortnightly family tax benefit part A will be imposed from the beginning of the 63-day grace period. This amendment will make the policy fairer. Families who do not keep their child's immunisation up to date will face a financial penalty regardless of whether they earn above or below $80,000. It is hoped that this amendment will also encourage those families who earn over $80,000 and who've so far not updated their child's immunisation to do so.

The larger the percentage of immunisation coverage in the community the greater our herd immunity, the fewer disease outbreaks we will have and the more lives that will be saved. Labor believes that all children deserve the opportunity to have the best start in life. Strengthening the immunity of our population so that unprotected babies will not be inflicted with whooping cough or other life-threatening and preventable diseases is just the right thing to do. I would not want my children to become ill because other families did not immunise their children. And I'd hate to think that I had contributed to a baby becoming ill or even, heaven forbid, dying because I did not keep the immunisations of my own children up to date.

These are good policy measures, and I support this bill, with the caveat that Labor has concerns about the provisions regarding child support and amended tax assessments. Labor is hopeful that a compromise on that measure can be reached in the Senate. Labor will always support measures that protect our children. I commend the legislation to the House.

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Preventing Family Violence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like the other speakers in this debate, I support the overwhelming majority of this bill and I have reservations about one aspect of it which goes to child support and the potential recovery of payments made to payees when a later tax return demonstrates that the assessment ought to have been less than it was.

The aspects of this bill that go to the other matters are, indeed, very commendable. It is pleasing that both the opposition and the government are in such furious bipartisanship when it comes to supporting the importance of vaccinations. We've all seen news of the damage that's done by antivaccination campaigns. We've all seen the concerns that doctors and other experts have raised in respect of misinformation and, in fact, disinformation in respect of the effects of vaccinations.

It is important to our community, as a whole, that people continue to trust the vaccinations that are offered by medical practitioners and to trust the vaccinations that are supported through the Commonwealth, and I think, sometimes, it's regrettable to see some of the people who are willing to make comments that tend to promote the anti-vaxxer movement. We all know that there's a senator in this parliament who, in the context of the Western Australian election, made some comments supportive of the anti-vaxxer movement. I think that was regrettable, not just because it spread this disinformation but, because when something is uttered by a senator, that tends to give it a cloak of authority and believability—not everyone would agree with that, of course. But when someone in authority speaks it can tend to, unfortunately, have that effect. When those comments were made, I think that they were quite rightly disagreed with and abhorred by people from across the political spectrum, and I was pleased to see that.

It is absolutely important that we, in looking at this legislation, support the provisions that promote a pro-vaccination culture. It's important to do that not for the individual children who are vaccinated only—though, of course, it is very important for them to be able to avoid terrible diseases such as polio, as the member for Moreton discussed, and hepatitis and whooping cough—but it's also important for our entire community that we maintain herd immunity. That means that by failing to vaccinate you are not just putting your own children at risk; you are putting at risk the children of others.

I want to place on record, though, some concerns about the child support provisions of the legislation and, as other speakers have said, I'm very hopeful that resolution will be able to be reached and compromise will be able to be reached once this bill is in the Senate. The specific concern I have, as I said, arises from the provisions in respect of amended tax assessments. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, child support payments are calculated according to a formula. An important part of calculating child support payments is to look at your income. Child support assessment looks at the income according to your income tax assessment, and there are some serious issues with the use of income tax assessments in respect of child support by some people in the system. Those issues were ventilated during the social policy and legal affairs committee's child support inquiry, of which I was a member in 2014. I've certainly got concerns about stories that I hear of people deliberately failing to put in their income tax return in time, knowing they don't have a debt to the tax office so they won't be fined but that it would materially affect the amount of child support they're required to pay.

That is a serious problem and I've raised, both in the social policy and legal affairs committee and the tax and revenue committee, my view that we should be doing more to ensure that people who are payers of child support do submit their tax returns on time. There should be more done to promote compliance amongst people who may not have a debt to the revenue but who do have obligations to their children. But that's not the specific issue that this bill seeks to deal with.

This bill seeks to deal with the situation where somebody does put in a tax return and ends up with a changed income tax assessment at some point during the financial year. This bill seeks, at the moment, to allow for that tax return to automatically change the child support amount that's calculated by reference to the formula. That's absolutely fine from my perspective, provided it's prospective. The difficulty arises, of course, when that is retrospectively applied.

If you are a payee of child support and you have received money in good faith, spent it on your children's shoes, school fees or food, and you are then told that, through no fault of your own and without your knowledge, you now have a debt because of the retrospective application of a provision around somebody else's income tax return, obviously that's going to be quite challenging—particularly for people in lower income households. If you're a single parent in a low-income household and you are suddenly told that you now have a debt, which could be in the hundreds of dollars, as a consequence of something completely beyond your control—something you did not know was going to happen—that obviously gives rise to some concern.

Similarly, if the money hasn't actually been paid—the money hasn't been received and hasn't been spent—the income tax assessment goes in and there's a new amount calculated by reference to the child support formula, it would not be my view that the payee should be able to recover against the payer for the period when the assessment calculation was different. But I am very concerned about a situation where single parents can be left with surprise debts.

This is a very sensitive area of policy, of course, and an issue that does require some thought. In my submission, the overriding principle that we should take into account when considering how this legislation should work should be the best interests of the children concerned. In a situation where someone is a child support payee and they're doing the majority of the caring for the children, it's going to be a rare case where the balance of considerations would, in my view, support the creation of a new, surprising debt that the person may have grave difficulty in paying.

Whichever way you slice it, there will be some unfairness in this system. If you end up with a lower calculation and you have paid money, it's going to be a situation where it's either unfair to the payer, because they can't recover that money, or unfair to the payee because they thought they were entitled to it and spent it, as I said, on shoes. In a situation where you cannot avoid the prospect of some unfairness, I would encourage us to look to the best interests of the children concerned, with a view to resolving where the unfairness must fall.

There are certainly many reasons why you might get an amended income tax return. I certainly do not stand here to say that anyone who gets an amended income tax return deliberately delayed putting in their income tax return, but it is important that we are very careful, in making this area of policy, to take into account the impact on individuals' lives and on households, and that means working together to find a resolution. I'm quite sure it's not beyond us. In fact, the 2014 child support inquiry that I mentioned earlier gave a unanimous report, regardless of the fact that this is a highly controversial and contested area of policy. I obviously thank the member for Dawson, who was the chair of the committee at the time, for his cooperation and bipartisanship in the course of that inquiry. Given that the member for Dawson and I, and other members of the committee, were able to, in a consensus and on a bipartisan basis, find common ground in relation to child support bodes very well for our ability collectively as a parliament to seek to resolve the issues in this legislation once it heads towards the Senate for consideration.

I encourage the parties concerned, including the government—and, of course, we will—to ensure that we work cooperatively to seek to resolve these issues. This is important. We are talking about people's lives. We are talking about the lives of single parents, which, frankly, are hard lives to start with. Let's not unnecessarily make them any more difficult. Let's work together to find the best possible solution.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.