Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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the Child Support Registrar from making an interim period determination whenever a previous care determination was revoked under other sections of the Child Support (Assessment) Act.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.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support and Family Assistance Technical Amendments) Bill 2024. We know child support is often a fairly vexed and contested area in family law. Sadly, having practiced as a family law barrister, I know very well it is often an area of quite acute contention, where there are fears of control and abuse that have come from the debates and the arguments around the payment of child support and where the financial insecurity of a parent with the predominant care of a child means the payment of child support can be used as a tool to manipulate, control and harass. Then there is also the vexed question where people feel the system is taking advantage to withhold time in exchange for greater payments and support through child support.

There has been an incredible number of inquiries looking into our child support system, and there have been a number of recommendations around how we can make it fairer and also more reflective that ultimately parents bear a financial responsibility for the children they bring into this world and, as such, that responsibility remains regardless of changes of circumstances and breakdown of relationships or decisions to remarry and have further children. That responsibility, once you have had children and brought them into this world, remains. I don't know that the system currently properly reflects that. I support this amendment in terms of this tweaking of the rules, but I would encourage the government to go further and to look more fully at this question because it is vexed and many people feel very strongly about this system.

Currently child support payments are calculated based on parents' total income divided by the proportion of care they provide to the child or the children. A set amount is subtracted from parents' own costs and then payments are worked out using a cost-of-children table. For example, parents' own costs is often a vexatious question depending on repartnering and whether further children are had and what additional costs come under the parental responsibility. Then also the cost-of-children table is problematic because it is very hard to say that one-size-fits-all meets the cost of children, especially if there are special needs or additional considerations. So you often see tension in this system. The parents' own costs are calculated by a measure called the 'male total average weekly earnings'. I urge the government to consider amending that descriptor, because even just the way it's described seems gender biased.

Our Warringah office hears from single parents struggling with the cost of living and some are additionally impacted by the unfairness of the child support they receive or pay, with it not aligning with the percentage of care they are doing. We have heard from single parents who have the added impact of domestic abuse. They want policy that takes into consideration the financial impact of this. I commend the government and the Attorney-General, who have already introduced a number of reforms when it comes to the Family Law Act in relation to where domestic violence interacts with the system.

Today, the technical amendments in this bill provide an opportunity as well to talk about the broader issues with the child support system. The child support system in Australia is decades old and, I would argue, needs wider, more fundamental reform. It's a fact that, today, 40 per cent of marriages end in divorce and a number of non-marriage relationships end as well. So it is sadly a frequent event that there has to be, on the breakdown of relationships, a sorting out of the financial responsibility to children. According to the Australian Institute of Family Studies, the proportion of divorces involving children under 18 is 48 per cent. So very, very frequently children are involved.

People are impacted by the breakdown of family relationships, and the current cost-of-living pressures are adding to those pressures felt by single-parent families. Sadly, as an advocate, I saw all too often how financial pressures bring on the breakdown of relationships, but the breakdown of relationships exacerbates and brings on greater financial pressures on the individuals involved. Caring for children costs money, and the higher the percentage of time that parents spend with children in their care the greater the impacts are on their weekly expenditure—there's no doubt about that. I urge the minister to review that table when it comes to the cost of the child, because I would argue that some of those formulas are quite outdated and certainly don't always take into account all the particular circumstances of a child.

We know as well that unfortunately the payment of child support is also frequently weaponised and used to withhold support and to impose a level of duress on the ex-partner and, by association, on the child. Too often the parents are so involved in the conflict that they lose sight of the fact that, ultimately, the person paying the price is the child. They ultimately have a responsibility to that child, having decided to bring that child into this world. About one-third of all parents paying child support have fallen behind, and it is predominantly men that have that liability. Collectively they owe some $1.7 billion in unpaid child support. More worryingly, we know that the nonpayment of child support, or the withholding of child support, can be used and abused to jeopardise the financial safety of single parents and children.

A 2023 report, by several academics, called Financial abuse: the weaponisation of child support in Australia highlighted some very stark issues with our current child support system. Following the separation from their partner, women—it's not always women, but more often than not it is women—are faced with ongoing financial abuse. We know legislation has now been introduced in several state jurisdictions to start addressing coercive control and those kinds of issues, but we shouldn't have a situation where a legislated system such as child support is used as an additional abusive tool.

We know—and the statistics show—that abuse primarily affects women, who continue to carry the burden of unpaid care work in Australia, and they are overrepresented in victim-survivors of family violence. The way the child support scheme can be weaponised means the results can be devastating for mothers and their children. According to the weaponisation report, 80 per cent of women reported that their ex-partner had replaced physical abuse with financial abuse through the child support system as a way to assert coercive control. Ex-partners' coercive control was enacted, according to study participants, by threatening to reduce child support payments; to not lodge tax returns, in order to deliberately lower payments or avoid a payment increase; or to simply work off the books so that it is not reflected in a liability to child support. This stands in stark contrast to what the system was set up for, which was to ensure that children are financially supported by both of their parents following a parental separation.

The bill at hand identifies and deals with what Services Australia identified in 2023: the concerns that the 2018 amendments to child support and family assistance legislation were not operating as intended, because of unclear drafting. Instead of strengthening the interim period provisions, the 2018 amendments unintentionally limited the circumstances where an interim period can apply. A Federal Court ruling in February found this to be the case, and, under the current legislation, an interim period can only apply at the start of a new child support assessment or family tax benefit claim when the breach of the care arrangements occurs at that point.

Under the amendments in this bill, there are a broader range of circumstances where interim periods will apply for child support payments. What are interim periods, and why are they so important? They're often used as part of court orders to determine a percentage payment that a parent must make as part of child support arrangements. Where that level of care is established is dependent on the size of the child support payment. Interim periods are also used to ensure a parent withholding care does not financially benefit through higher family tax benefit payments.

I should note that there have been changes to the Family Law Act, through the Attorney-General and amendments, in relation to that withholding of time and contravention of orders. There is this horrible nexus between abusing the system, of withholding care at times, and seeking to increase financial support or child support payments. Too often, parents are already in a high-conflict situation and feel that the other is using the system to punish, abuse or take advantage. We need to make sure the system works in a way that avoids those kinds of situations. An interim period in which care might have changed, or when there's a withholding of time prior to a decision by the court, will be simplified so that these things can't be used to ensure that the withholding of care will mean a financial benefit through a higher family tax benefit payment or impact on child support.

I support this bill. These amendments are important and they affect a large number of Australian families. Families don't need the added stress and time of chasing up payments that they're entitled to—invariably, single parents, and women. It should be up to the government to make sure that a fair system is in place. The amendments to this bill would see that existing rules apply to protect children and parents who are at risk of domestic and family violence. If a care arrangement has changed due to fear of violence or neglect, Services Australia will be able to ensure that child support and FTB payments are based on actual care and that an interim period doesn't apply. I understand that changes will be put in place under the amendments to make sure that interim period decisions made since the 2018 legislation will be brought into line. This should be done to minimise the impact on parents and carers who may otherwise be disadvantaged financially by having these decisions disrupted.

But where can we go from there? I would argue to the minister that we certainly need to review the definitions used in the act, including the definition that identifies male total average weekly earnings. This is problematic and should be changed as a definition. I think we also need to look at some of the issues identified in the 2023 weaponisation report. The government could look at the feasibility of implementing a guaranteed child support payment, where it would underwrite and pay child support up-front. It would be the recovery agent from the parent with the liability to pay, as it is from a tax point of view. This would take away the pressure and responsibility of being the cop on the beat when collecting those child support payments for single parents who are already struggling and dealing with the impacts, usually, of domestic violence and abuse. The government would then seek collection of payments and enforce compliance on the parent paying, whilst ensuring that violent ex-partners are not rewarded for abusive behaviour. The government already recovers payments through the tax system and it would be of assistance to single parents if the government stepped in in this way and underwrote support. We wouldn't have the situation where single-parent families, frequently women, go without any support but still have the responsibility of meeting costs for the children.

As I said, the current formulas used within parts of the child support system are out of date. They don't properly reflect the cost of a child to the parent who is the primary carer. In this instance, the current formula reduces the financial contribution to the children they already have when there's a change of circumstance or if there's a decision to have further children. The situation then means that the cost of the existing children falls disproportionately on the other parents. Again, this gives rise to added tensions, and I think it should be better addressed.

Many situations have been investigated, and panels established by the government in 2023 could contribute. One is the Child Support Stakeholder Consultation Group, which provides a direct voice to government about issues impacting on families. I look forward to seeing what recommendations come out of that system. Its membership includes national peak bodies and organisations representing separated parents and their children, or who provide services, programs and other expertise related to separated parents and their children. Then there's the Child Support Expert Panel, which includes academics with expertise in child support research, family law and expenditure data. Its scope is more focused and technical in nature than that of the stakeholder group. It will provide oversight of research into the cost of caring for children and will develop a methodology to review the child support formula on a more regular basis to ensure that it continues to reflect the cost of raising children in Australia.

There are fundamental problems with the system. It's very difficult to come up with the right formula, and I don't think there's any government which has come up with the magic wand. There are definitely tensions where child support payments are linked to nights of care; sometimes parents have daytime care of children and that's a disproportional financial burden as opposed to a time burden. I'm encouraged that the minister is engaging with the issue, and I urge the government to go further, to try to bring the child support payment up to modern-day standards.

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

I rise in support of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support and Family Assistance Technical Amendments) Bill 2024 as brought to the House by the wonderful Minister for Social Services. Australia's child support scheme began in 1988, and I think the minister would be old enough to remember 1988, when Expo 88 was in Brisbane. I think this building opened in 1988, and I actually married a Canadian that year. Two out of those three things worked out alright! When we separated, we didn't have children, so we didn't have to consider child support.

Child support ensures that children from separated families are financially supported by both parents in line with each other's financial capacity and the consideration of how much of their time is spent caring for the child. The guiding principle of the child support scheme has always been to promote the best interests of the child—something that's sometimes forgotten. But this amendment reflects that consideration. Decisions around the appropriate level of financial support can often be a lengthy, stressful, emotional and expensive undertaking for parents. It's not uncommon, when love turns to hate, for there to be children outside of that whole process, children who are obviously the expression of love from the start of the relationship. Hope distils, and then you often up with—and we see this as members of parliament—adults who have become quite hopeless at dealing with their children. It's vital to ensure that the processes are fair. It's also crucial to ensure that the outcome of the assessment and the collection of child support are fair. Child support must not be used by parents to carry out post-separation abuse or financial control. I repeat: it should be all about promoting the best interests of the child or children.

The bill before the House today contains a technical amendment which ensures that the child support scheme operates as the Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Act 2018 intended. Due to unclear drafting of the legislation at the time, the protecting children act limited the circumstances where interim periods could apply, rather than broadening them as intended. Interim periods have been a longstanding and key component of the Australian child support system. When concerns are raised about legislation, it's vital that good governments act swiftly to resolve them.

In this case, during the 2023 Administrative Appeals Tribunal proceedings, concerns were identified by Services Australia regarding the operation of the interim period provisions. A subsequent Federal Court ruling in February this year found that the 2018 amendment did not operate as intended. The intention was to strengthen the interim period provisions; however, it unintentionally limited the circumstances where an interim period can apply. The Albanese Labor government is committed to quick action on legislative reform through this bill, which will clarify when interim periods can be applied.

To work out child support payments and family tax benefits, each parent's percentage of care for the child or children is assessed. This is usually based on each parent's actual care of the child. However, sometimes there is a written care agreement in place; it might be a parenting plan that both parents have agreed to, or it's not uncommon for it to be a court order when they couldn't resolve it themselves. In these cases, the percentage of care and the percentage payment a parent has to make can be based on the written arrangement for an interim period. Interim periods are important as they promote compliance with written care arrangements. They can also ensure that a parent withholding care does not financially benefit from higher family tax benefit payments and, conversely, that the other parent is not worse off with higher child support payments and lower family tax benefit payments.

Currently, an interim period can only apply at the start of a new child support assessment or family tax benefit claim when the breach of the care arrangement occurs at that point. The original design of the 2018 amendment was to ensure a greater period of time before a child support assessment is recalculated when there is a dispute about the care of the child. In some cases, the short interim period, which was 14 weeks at the time of the original amendment, meant that a child support assessment could be changed while the parents were actually working to reach a parenting agreement. Therefore the amendment focused on an increase to the interim period when one parent was exercising their rights under a parenting order and undergoing a dispute resolution process. This amendment will provide clarification on the usage of interim periods. As the minister said, passage of this bill is essential to ensure child support legislation clearly outlines where interim periods can apply. The permissible length of the interim period will increase to 52 weeks, and, after this time, the percentage of care will be based on the actual care being provided by the parents.

The application of an interim period can also have a positive effect on resolving complicated family disputes. For an interim period to apply, the parent with reduced care must demonstrate their efforts to comply with the care arrangements. One bit of parenting advice that my Canadian wife gave me is that we should always lean in when children are doing the right thing, and that includes adults as well in this situation. This can take the form of trying to work with the other parent towards reinstating the care arrangement or working with a dispute resolution service. It can also mean starting legal proceedings or keeping the police up to date with developments, such as a child being taken without consent.

The limited time—the 52 weeks of an interim period—also balances the opportunity for parents to comply with written care arrangements to ensure that child support goes to the parent caring for the child. It's important to note that the amendment in this bill will not affect the existing rules that apply to protect children and parents at risk of domestic and family violence. Decisions made for written care arrangements are made in the best interests of the child. If a care arrangement has changed due to information about family violence or child protection issues such as neglect, Services Australia can enforce child support and family tax benefit payments based on actual care percentages. In these cases, no interim period would apply. The bill also provides direction to ensure that decisions made since the 2018 amendments are legally valid and in line with the intended policy in order to minimise the impact on parents and carers if the decision is disrupted.

The amendment under discussion today is just part of the Albanese Labor government's commitment to strengthening the child support scheme. An estimated 1.2 million parents and one million Australian children have child support arrangements in place. It's a source of much conflict. The member for Blair, who has spoken on this bill, and I did an inquiry into this over a decade ago, and it's still an issue.

In the last budget, the government committed over $5 million of funding to implement recommendations from the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System. I was a member of that committee, and one of the committee's recommendations was the establishment of the Child Support Stakeholder Consultation Group to provide information to the government on issues affecting families. That committee also recommended the development of the Child Support Expert Panel, which includes people with expertise in child support research, family law and expenditure. Part of the panel's role is to design a methodology for reviewing the child support formula when expenditure data, like the ABS's living costs in Australia survey, are made available. This will ensure that child support payments are at an adequate level of financial support. Further initiatives include review and compliance with child support scheme to ensure vulnerable single-parent families are financially supported and to gain an understanding of how to support parents with caring responsibilities.

The bill is technical, but it's nevertheless an important piece of the child support system. It will ensure the child support scheme operates as initially intended in previous amendments. It has my full support, and I commend it to the House.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In summing up, I'd like to thank all of those who have contributed to this debate on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support and Family Assistance Technical Amendments) Bill 2024, which is a technical amendment to ensure that the child support scheme operates as intended. Through this bill, the government is taking action to quickly resolve legislative uncertainty and restore the parliament's intent from the 2018 bill. The passage of this bill is essential to ensure that child support legislation clearly outlines where interim periods can apply. I'd like to thank the member for Deakin, the shadow minister for social services, for showing practicality and bipartisanship to move this legislation through the parliament promptly.

Interim periods are an important, longstanding feature of the child support scheme. Interim periods are important because they encourage compliance with written care agreements. The bill clarifies provisions in the child support and family assistance legislation to ensure interim periods are available in a broader range of circumstances, consistent with longstanding policy and practice. While not known as an interim period, child support assessments have been able to reflect the contravention of a court order or parenting plan since 1998. Interim periods in their current form have existed since 2010, when child support and family assistance legislation were aligned with the same care determinations. The bill includes retrospective provisions to ensure decisions made since the 2018 bill and in line with the intended policy are legally valid. This is important to minimise the impact on parents and carers who may otherwise be financially disadvantaged by having these decisions disrupted. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.