Child Support Amendment-Tribunal Rejected (2)

Men's Rights Agency - Child Support

Coalition rejects Child Support Tribunal - Part 2 posted 19/5/98
(Please use "BACK" button to return to previous page)

CHILD SUPPORT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1998

in Detail Consideration resumed.

Mr PRICE (Chifley) (5:01 p.m.)—The member for Dickson (Mr Tony Smith) has moved amendments and our spokesman, the member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson), will shortly be moving some amendments, but I wanted to particularly address those—and I know he has only spoken part of the way in what he wants to address—in the member for Dickson�s proposals.

I often remember Paul Keating talking about the marketplace of ideas. I have always welcomed those who put ideas before indifferent forums and it is in that context that I welcome his suggestions, although I hope to explain why I will not be specifically supporting them. I do want to say, very strongly, that I share one aspect and that is that I really think there is a need for a tribunal in family law where lawyers are precluded from appearing. Although there are constitutional difficulties with that, I believe that they can be overcome. What the member for Dickson is addressing by way of his amendments are very important issues. Firstly, I think in administrative law there is a well established principle that citizens have a right to have an internal review of administrative decisions. The difficulty with the review office is that it purports to operate because the review offices are external, as though it were a proper external body of review, similar to that we have in the Department of Veterans� Affairs or the Department of Social Security.

I want to make it clear that I believe we should have a robust system of internal review but also of external review, one that is efficient, cost effective and based on a similar way in which these two departments operate. During the second reading debate the member for Richmond (Mr Anthony) suggested that the government was going to institute a review of review officers to return a degree of consistency and predictability in the way in which they reach decisions. I think that, particularly for an external review body if not internal, this is absolutely vital. Citizens ought to know what reasonable chance they have of success when they appear before it.

During the committee�s inquiries, we were being assured 3½ years ago or more that this very same thing was happening. The point I wanted to make to the government members in particular is that you are really faced, at the moment, with two choices: one is the proposals that are being elaborated on by the member for Dickson here in this chamber today and the other is the original proposals the committee put forward, which have been substantially ignored.

I want to reiterate what would happen under those proposals. The existing system is internal review, not external review, and therefore a significant departure from normal administrative practice. We should institute a proper basis of internal review, as operates under other departments. The registrar would have the first right, if you like, to fix a mistake of his own volition or as a result of internal review. But if parties, after having made that request, were dissatisfied then they would have this right to go to an external body like the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. If they were not happy there they would, as they do with the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, go to AAT or the Family Court.

It is fatuous to suggest, as the government has tended to, that the proposals either by the member for Dickson or those originally proposed in the committee report are more expensive time wasting. I think these are basic rights that any citizen should have when dealing with departments and even agencies like the Child Support Agency. It is an absolute tragedy that nothing has been done to fix up this serious error of administration. So much of the administrative recommendations have been picked up, I admit that, but not this particular one. (Time expired)

Mr TONY SMITH (Dickson) (5.06 p.m.)—What the member for Chifley (Mr Price) is basically alluding to there is the need to have procedural fairness in all of this. We do not have procedural fairness while there is justice, so-called, behind closed doors. As I said in my speech during the second reading debate, the very soul of justice is publicity. For people who are not subject to the normal rigorous processes of outside scrutiny, as the review officers are not, it is all very well to say there is an appeal from the review officer, but who can afford to go to the Family Court on appeal from a review officer? Nobody. They are exercising tremendous power, yet story after story that comes to my office indicates that they are not behaving according to the rules of natural justice.

I want to address the question of fairness, which is the purpose behind my amendments. Will anybody in this House say it is fair for a non-custodial parent to pay $1,200 a month for a two-year-old child and that the same amount should be paid for a 16-year-old child? That is the current system and that, in itself, is inherently unfair and inequitable. Is it fair and equitable, for example, for $100,000 to be paid in child support, tax free, to a custodial parent and for that parent still to be able to get the pension? They are still able to get the pension and get $100,000. That is the way the system is at the moment. We cannot have a system that works in this way and is not subject to external review. It is not equitable, it is not logical, and yet the system con-tinues. I emphasise this: it is no good saying, �We have to balance both sides,� when the scales are tipped so far the other way. I am not ashamed to say that. They are tipped in favour of the custodial parent. Let us be honest—they are. As other members have said, it is no good us having a cherry picker approach to the report of the member for Chifley. We have got to look at the whole of that report, the totality of that report. Frankly, having sat on a lengthy inquiry into the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, it is highly insulting for a later group to come along and say, �Thanks very much. You�ve worked very hard, but we�ll just have a little flick through this report. We�ll grab one here and one there and then make a point of saying that we are adopting schedule or part such and such of the report.� It is an insult to the people who served on those committees and the people who heard the evidence. We have got to listen to all these things.

The major problem is, in my view, apart from anything else, the unfairness aspect. We must look at matters such as the cost of children. I have before me a document outlining two approaches to the cost of children: the �basket-of-goods approach� and the �expenditure survey approach�. The document came from the Institute of Family Studies. It is a 1998 document.

I seek leave to incorporate this document in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows—UPDATE

Costs of Children in Australia

There are two important differences between results obtained by using the basket-of-goods method and the expenditure survey method as presented in the accompanying Tables. First, the basket-of-goods approach provides only part of the cost of a child, while the expenditure survey measures the total amount spent on the child. Second, the basket-of-goods method indicates how much parents would spend on their children if the child was to enjoy the fruits of the basket specified by the researcher. In this sense, it provides an �ideal� or desirable costing. In contrast, the expenditure survey method indicates how much parents actually spend on their children, even though the amount spent might be considered inadequate or excessive by the objective standards of the basket-of-goods method.

Basket-of-Goods Approach Based on Lovering 1983

Adjusted to CPI figure September Quarter 1997


Age of Children
2yrs		5yrs		8yrs		11yrs		Teenage
Week	Yearly	Week	Yearly	Week	Yearly	Week	Yearly	Week	Yearly
Cost for Low Income Families (below average weekly wage)
31.73	1655.33	40.72	2161.29	49.94	2603.41	52.96	2762.83	78.89	4114.00
Middle Income Families (average weekly wage and above)
47.75	2490.04	53.56	2794.78	69.15	3605.61	89.51	4551.97	131.26	6844.60

Note: Included are food and clothing, fuel, household provisions, costs of schooling (not fees), gifts, pocket money and entertainment. NOT included are housing, transport, school fees or uniforms, child care, medical or dental expenses. Holidays are a component of the middle income figures only.

Source: Lovering, K. (1984), Cost of Children in Australia, Working Paper no.8, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne.

Expenditure Survey Approach Based on Lee 1989

Adjusted to AWE figure September Quarter 1997

	0-1yrs	2-4yrs	5-7yrs	8-10yrs	11-13yrs
Food	31.98	28.12	29.63	41.37	45.59
Transport	47.18	36.65	38.22	53.24	45.18
Recreation	32.77	26.19	39.40	39.65	36.91
Household Goods	32.56	30.02	27.13	28.50	31.66
Housing & Utilities	26.31	16.85	21.27	14.38	30.37
Clothing	17.74	15.57	18.00	16.62	24.04
Other*	17.64	15.14	11.94	26.22	30.69
Total Weekly	206.30	168.77	182.54	220.17	244.84

* Includes medical and dental costs, education costs and other miscellaneous costs. Costs of children vary according to the number of children in the family, the parents� incomes and whether one or both parents are working.

Note: The figures in the table relate to a one-child, one-income family with an income of $693.80 gross per week. The Lee data show that two children cost about 55 per cent more than one child, while three children cost about twice the cost of one child. The dollar costs of children are relatively �flat� compared with rises in family income: children in poor families cost proportionally more, and children in rich families proportionally less than those in middle income families.

Source: Lee, D. (1989), Calculations of the direct costs of children based on the 1984 ABS Household Expenditure Survey, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne. Australian Institute of Family Studies 1998

Mr TONY SMITH—The basket-of-goods approach is the cost of such things as food, clothing, fuel, household provisions, schooling—not school fees— gifts, pocket money and entertainment. Not included are things such as housing, transport, school fees, uniforms, child care, medical or dental expenses.

The expenditure survey approach, said to be based on Lee1989, chose a much higher figure. It must be realised at the outset that expenditure does not equal cost. The problem with the expenditure survey approach is that it is said to be based on a regression analysis. Even in the expenditure survey approach we can see in the document references to the expenditure approach and then cost as if those terms were interchangeable—they are not. So inherent in the survey is an inherent defect.

Attempts to track down Mr Lee to find out exactly what that means have been unsuccessful. The document upon which it is based is at the moment unprocurable, yet the document is being peddled by the Institute of Family Studies and frequently forms the basis of orders by courts as to the amount of child support to be paid and government policy in this area.

This is simply not good enough. Mr Price�s committee recommended that the income of new partners be taken into account. (Time expired)

Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (5.11 p.m.)— What an extraordinary little political drama we are witnessing being played out this afternoon. We have here a member of the government, the member for Dickson (Mr Tony Smith), moving amendments to the government�s own bill, the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998. Certainly in my time in this place I have not seen it happen before, and I wonder just how far back in history we would have to go to see such an event.

We have not heard from the government. My question is: what is the government�s position in relation to the amendments moved by the member for Dickson? Is the government going to support the member for Dickson or is the government going to oppose him? This is a sign of a government in disarray and, indeed, a Liberal Party in disarray.

When I first came into this place three members were sitting on the cross benches as Independents: the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson), the member for Moore (Mr Filing) and the member for Curtin (Mr Rocher). They were previously members of the Liberal Party. Since that time we have seen the member for Lowe (Mr Zammit) cross the floor and become an Independent and we have seen the member for McPherson (Mr Bradford) cross the floor and become an Independent. Indeed, the member for McPherson has, I understand, seconded the amendments moved by the member for Dickson. It would appear that the member for Dickson is off on a frolic of his own, unsupported by his own government. We now need to hear what the position of the government is in relation to the amendments moved by the member for Dickson. This is a sign of a government in disarray. We have seen a plethora of ministerial resignations, of parliamentary secretary resignations—including the Deputy President of the Senate—in all these things. I do not think we have seen anything like this since the Stalin cabinet of 1920.

Mr Tony Smith—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The amendments that I have moved are about specific matters in relation to the setting up of a tribunal. The speaker should address those matters, not embark on a political exercise, which he is doing.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—There is no point of order, but I will ask the speaker toaddress his remarks to the amendments before the chair.

Mr KELVIN THOMSON—Thank you, Mr DeputySpeaker. I certainly intend to do that, but I thought it was worth drawing the attention of the House to what is a fascinating small political drama being played out here this afternoon. But in relation to the amendments before the House, the opposition has not had an opportunity to consider them. They were not provided to us by the member for Dickson, which gives rise to some questions about how seriously he has been pursuing these things. Indeed, we will not be supporting the amendments which have been moved. We think that the concerns which the member for Dickson raises can be better addressed in other ways. Nevertheless, we have listened with interest to the observations that he has made concerning the operation of the scheme and we will be listening to further contributions from him in the course of the debate.

Mr TONY SMITH (Dickson) (5.14 p.m.)—This is too important an issue for it to become political. It really is a very important issue that is facing so many people around this country. I am trying to raise the profile of this issue. I say to the last speaker, the member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson), that, as a result of my indicating these measures, there have been further moves, and these moves have been reflected in subsequent amendments and foreshadowed amendments to the legislation. The very fact that I came in here, said these things and foreshadowed what I was going to do has at least got the ball moving a little. We have a long way to go, but I am thankful for what has happened so far. I was informed only in the last hour that much more work is being done on this across the board.

We have a system that urgently needs addressing. People are committing suicide because of this system. We cannot ignore that in this country. We have got to do something about it. The only way to do it is to get back to the basics: determining the needs of children, the capacity to pay of both parents, the circum-stances of the blended families, and so forth. As I said before, the committee of the member for Chifley (Mr Price) has done some good work on it. The backbench committee—the new task force committee—has done more good work. It needs to go a lot further.

Going back to the regression tables that I was talking about a moment ago, and which now appear to be lost, an essential tenet of the proposition was that �two families spending the same amount on food eaten at home are said to have the same standard of living�. I would have thought that this is a preposterous suggestion. Yet this sort of information is being pushed to found government policy. The previous government was basing policy on some of this stuff. People out there are hurting. In my respectful submission, we should not adopt a piecemeal approach. What is needed is an approach that addresses this issue. My amendments do that.

During the second reading debate many honourable members opposite were calling for a free and open debate on this issue—one with no political restraints. The member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) was one of those who was saying that, and he is right. It is important for families that we have a free and open vote in this parliament on this issue, bearing in mind that many families are affected by the break-up of marriages and by the pain and heartache involved. The children, in particular, are pulled hither and thither.

These amendments, far from being indicative of a government that is in disarray, are showing the strength of the system on our side of the parliament that forces a review of these things. It is a conscious move by members who are concerned—and it is not just me. There has been a lot of support expressed for this issue both in the Main Committee stage of the debate and also privately. We need this system to be overhauled. My proposals effect that. We have magistrates courts and courts of petty sessions in place all around the country; the cost factor involved is not a lot. They are there now. Each person around the country affected by this system—each divided family by this stage—can go in there and have their case individually treated by a magistrate in a fair and open way, with evidence on oath; all of these things. As I said at the outset, we need a conscious and urgent approach to fix this system. Progress has been made but much more needs to be done, and done urgently. The message is finally getting through that that is the case. I submit to you that we will need this debate to continue and that these amendments should be accepted.

Mr BRADFORD (McPherson) (5.19 p.m.)—I made a contribution earlier on in this matter. I am disappointed that the Labor Party is not going to support the amendments of the member for Dickson (Mr Tony Smith). I am not sure what the government will do at this stage, but I look forward to the Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet) to the Prime Minister (Mr Miles) informing the parliament of his intentions. He has brought forward some positive suggestions to improve the Child Support Agency regime. The problem is that this is bandaid legislation. Nobody is saying that this legislation is not positive or that it is not making improvements, but it is only bandaid legislation. It is only fiddling with the problems.

There are no government members in the chamber, with the exception of the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs (Mr Truss), the parliamentary secretary and the member for Dickson.

They know that I know they are all very concerned about this matter. What is more, they have been very outspoken about it. They were very disappointed with the response of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Newman) on this issue, and I assume they still are. She has been very reluctant to do anything substantial in this area and has been very timid and overly cautious about it. The member for Dickson came in here with a well thought out plan to address many of the fundamental problems. We can expect the government, of which he is a member, to not support his amendments, otherwise they would not be coming up in this form. Unfortunately, the Labor Party does not see fit to support them either, although I know the member for Chifley would generally be sympathetic to what is being proposed by the member for Dickson.

I am disappointed with the way in which this whole issue is proceeding. As I said, every member of this place gets more complaints about the Child Support Agency than any other issue. From my experience with government members, I know that they remain very concerned that the government has not yet done enough to address many of the fundamental problems which exist. Instead of addressing the fundamentals and coming to grips with them in the fairly radical way proposed by the member for Dickson, we have a large list of minor tinkering at the edges which only amounts to, as I said, bandaid solutions.

This agency—this system—is haemorrhaging so badly and adversely affecting so many people in our community that bandaids are just not going to work and are not enough. What is needed is a fundamental rethink. The principle involved of making parents responsible for their children—in most cases making fathers responsible for the children of relationships that they have been in—is a sound one. We all accept and understand that that is the case. But the way that it is being put into effect is not working. As I was saying earlier today, I have a case at the moment of a couple who are receiving a double whammy. The husband in the new relationship has a former wife who is living the life of Riley with the wealthy man she is now with. The wife in the new relationship�s former husband is in the same situation with the lady he is now attached to, but he refuses to pay maintenance and has no income. So this particular family finds themselves almost destitute and they owe the Child Support Agency money which they keep getting reminded about. Every time they get reminders in the mail the situation is made a hundred times worse.

I commend the member for Dickson for what he has done and I support his amendments. I do not know where it will go from here but at least somebody— and that is the member for Dickson—in this place is actually trying to get to some of the basics and to look for fundamental solutions to the problems rather than just doing as this legislation does—albeit improving the situation to some extent, it nevertheless only manages to tinker with the edges.

Mr TONY SMITH (Dickson) (5.24 p.m.)—I thank the member for McPherson (Mr Bradford) for his considered remarks. He has always gone on record as someone who has desired a significant reform of this system. One of the things that I also want to point out in pointing to these amendments as a way to go is what is sometimes forgotten. If I can give just a very short lesson on the common law here, what I am proposing is that the tribunal would exercise the old common law principle with only one departure in that I use the word �parents� rather than �parent�. The old common law just had the principle �the needs of the child and the capacity to pay of the parent�. In this modern time both parents are working in a lot of cases. A lot of parents both have the capacity to pay, therefore we take the whole bundle together these days. That is the only update there.

Another point that I wanted to make clear is that when we are talking about child support what we are talking about is maintenance. At common law, again, an applicant for maintenance could rarely get arrears of maintenance beyond one or two years. It was highly extraordinary to get maintenance beyond that time for the simple reason that the child is two—or sometimes five—years older than the time when that amount of money accrued, and what we are talking about then is a capital payment, not child support, because the child has moved on. It is important to bear that in mind because of the culture of the Child Support Agency. There is the notion that it is just the same as tax because it is part of the Taxation Office; it is not. It has been said that the money is a debt to the Commonwealth. This is about money for children but it is also about fairness. It is not about creating a situation where a person wears the pendulum of a debt, going back five or ten years in some cases, with absolutely no chance of paying it back. It is hanging like a millstone around their neck. We have to get away from that culture and get to the culture of appreciating that this is about ongoing maintenance of children; it is not about large debts that will turn into capital payments if repaid in the future—which has nothing to do with child support.

The child could be over 18 and there could be a debt of $10,000. Does that mean that at some stage in the future, if the liable parent wins the Casket, suddenly $10,000 goes straight to the person? This has nothing to do with child support unless the person who is the custodial parent has changed his or her position in consideration of not having daily mainte-nance; that is a different situation. If they have borrowed money and all those sorts of things, that can be considered. I point out that a court can look at these things but a bland agency, with one person exercising great powers with the stroke of a pen, has this myopic view of things. It has no appreciation of the way the common law works or the reality of these things: that this is not about debts; it is about ongoing maintenance. I emphasise that, particularly in relation to the suggestion that there are going to be greater powers in the departure orders that are talked about.This is not the time to talk about that, but bear in mind that the reason behind this particular amendment is to ensure procedural fairness, to ensure the right of every individual to be heard. It is part of my political philosophy that every individual couple out there can be heard, whether they send their kids to state schools—I used to go to a state school; Salisbury High School—or to Grammar. They all have their opportunity to be heard and to present their case. They are special in the eyes of the court, in the eyes of this tribunal, because they are all given their go, they are all given their day. That is what this is really about. So, without wanting to take any more time of the House, I do urge this proposal upon the House and I thank members for listening to me.

Mr BRADFORD (McPherson) (5.28 p.m.)—I have just got one other point that I would like to make. I appreciate the patience of the government. The Chief Whip has asked me to make my remarks brief. I told him if he would give me 30 seconds, I would cooperate. I am using up the seconds anyway.

I wanted to ask the parliamentary secretary just one question which he might address at some stage, that is, what is the effect of this legislation requiring the introduction of a minimum income of $260 in calculating the amount of child care payable in respect of a day? Is that related to the fact that people are required to pay now regardless of their circumstances? I understand that is the minimum amount that they now have to pay. I am not sure how they are going to do it if they do not have any income, if they are unemployed. They are not liable for a child support payment under those circumstances, but I got the impression that this was a requirement that, regardless of the person�s means, they would have to pay a minimum amount. I am not sure where that camefrom and I would just like to understand where, if the people are destitute, they are going to get even that $260 from.

Mr MILES (Braddon—Parliamentary Secretary [Cabinet] to the Prime Minister) (5.30 p.m.)—To address that amount of $260 to begin with, the government�s position on this is that every parent has an obligation to their children. I do not think any parents who have come to me have rejected that concept or principle. To give an example to the member for McPherson (Mr Bradford), we are expecting those people who are unemployed to contribute $5 per week for 52 weeks—the $260. That is going on the principle that every parent has a responsibility to the children they have brought into this world. Hopefully, that gives the honourable member a sense of direction in regard to what he is asking about.

The member for Chifley (Mr Price) indicated—and I did not get up at that time to reply—that he believed the bill nets the government $47 million over four years. We do not believe that is the case. It does not. The savings from one measure—for example, private collection funds—fund the other measures, such as the increase in pay as exempt income and allowing credit for the 50 per cent of child support paid to determine the entitlement to family payment. I hope that is helpful to the member for Chifley. Whether he agrees with it is up to him; I recognise that.

To come to the amendments which are now before the House, I make the following comments. The proposal is for a small claims child support tribunal. We believe that this tribunal would not provide a new service and would not assist parents to have contact with their children. There is a range of issues we could go into but I want to come to the point quickly. In regard to the recommendations from the government task force, as announced already here today, the existing process to depart from formula assessment will be examined to develop a range of options that will improve its transparency and accountability. Changes are to be considered in 1999, the 2000 budget process.

Secondly, there will be a review of the training, qualifications and remuneration of officers contracted to determine applications to depart from formula assessment which will report to the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp) by 30 June this year. This review will include legislation, procedures, information needed by clients, physical location and accountability of officers, and notification of decisions and appeal mechanisms, including an evaluation of the proposed legislative amendment which introduces objection provisions for the departure decisions. So we believe we are moving forward on this.

One or two comments were made earlier in regard to which I make these comments. The government has responded to all of the 163 recommendations of the joint standing committee. We did not accept all of them. The government does not accept the amendments which are now before the House. But I have to say to members of the previous government, now members of the opposition, that the previous government responded to about 50 of the 163 recommendations, whereas we have at least responded to all of them, and the previous government did not introduce any legislation. We believe that this is a definite step forward in regard to this issue. Some people in this parliament are obviously saying it does not go far enough. I guess in that sense that even within the government we are a broad church on a whole range of issues, but these are steps forward and we trust that they will be of benefit to families and children in this country. I state again that the government is opposed to these amendments.

Amendments negatived. (Tribunal Legislation defeated)

Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (5.35 p.m.)—by

leave—I move: (Go to Labour Party Amendments)

I want to recap briefly on the child support debate as we find it now. The starting point, I guess, in terms of discussion of these issues is the report on the child support scheme by the Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Law Issues, chaired by the member for Chifley (Mr Price). As has been mentioned, that committee attracted an extraordinary level of interest. It received over 6,000 submissions. A hotline organised by the joint select committee generated 150,000 calls in two days of operation. That indicates the level of community interest and indeed concern about this issue.

It is also borne out by the fact that, according to the 1995-96 Commonwealth Ombudsman�s report, the Child Support Agency accounts for some 16 per cent of all complaints to the Ombudsman�s office. The Child Support Agency receives in excess of 4,000 letters a day. Indeed, during the period from 1 July 1997 to 30 November 1997 it received over 17,000 applications for departure from the standard formula. So it is an area that has attracted a lot of community interest.

The government, with the bill before the House, the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998, is essentially acknowledging a lot of the value of the child support scheme by only tinkering at the margins. I think anyone who has had a detailed look at this legislation will acknowledge that the changes are very small indeed and are very much at the margin, a point made by the member for Chifley in some of his earlier remarks about the financial impact of this legislation. That point is also clear if you look at some of the examples given by the government in its own explanatory memorandum. If you do some calculations on this you find that if your income is $50,000 and you are a payer then presently you have to pay around 22 per cent of your income in looking after two children.

Under the government�s proposed changes you will still have to pay 22 per cent. In other words, there is no effective change. If your income is $40,000, current payments of 21 per cent move to 20 per cent, allowing for rounding in these matters. So the changes are very much at the margin.

In the hypothetical examples given in the explanatory memorandum of a couple that go by the names of Peter and Francine, we see that Peter�s child support annual rate changes from $11,163 to $10,795.

In another calculation in a hypothetical example, Peter ends up having to pay Francine $7,663 compared with $7,686 under the current legislation. That is $23 per annum less and hardly cause, as I said in the second reading debate, for breaking out the champagne.

In the second reading debate I indicated amend-ments that the opposition would be moving. I asked that the government might see their way clear to support these amendments. Indeed, I noted that, if you have pioneering and trailblazing legislation like the child support legislation, it is reasonably predictable that that kind of legislation will require tinkering and adjustment in the future. I asked that the government consider the amendments that we put forward. It is very clear from the amendments which the government propose to move later in this debate that they have considered our proposals and have, to some extent, taken them on board. We welcome the fact that the government have done that. We do want to ask the government some questions about their amendments, but we welcome the fact that they are taking on board some of the proposals that we put forward and flagged during the debate in the second reading on this issue.

I want to run through some of the issues that we are proposing with our amendments, and we will persist with them because we have not had the opportunity to look at the government�s amendments in any detail. They have only been flagged within the last 24 hours. We may have the opportunity to consider them more between this place and the Senate. But, given that we have not had those opportunities, and there appear to be some differences between what we have beenputting forward and what the government has now agreed—(Time expired)

Mr BROUGH (Longman) (5.40 p.m.)—Like many of my colleagues, I have been intimately involved in this process since entering the parliament in 1996. I have not spoken to this bill until now. The work I have done, like many of my colleagues, has been done in back rooms talking to ministers and convincing them as to what has to occur.

Mr Latham—How do we know?

Mr BROUGH—The bottom line is that the proof is in the pudding or in the eating. What we have now is something before the parliament which is actually going to occur. I find it very interesting that the opposition—and I see the member that chaired the report in this parliament—brought down an excellent report. But the bottom line was that the opposition, then in government, did not have the gumption to do one damn thing about this whole issue. They let down both the mothers and the fathers that had been out there striving to come to grips with this system.

It is my opinion that the system when introduced in 1998 set the pendulum from one that supported the non-custodial parent to one that supported the custodial parent to such a degree that there was no balance. So we have gone from one end of the spectrum to the other. What I and many of my colleagues have been about is trying to put some balance back into this so that all parties can gain. What the opposition has done is nothing more than play pathetic politics. The bottom line is that, if they actually wanted to do anything, they had since 1998 to do something about it. They did not do anything about it.

Now when they come into this place with these amendments they do so with the protection of knowing that they do not have to actually make a decision. We in government have strived very hard to ensure that both the payers and the payees were looked at in a respectable and a responsible manner. We have responded not only to the report but also to the people who have come into our electorate offices. In my opinion this is yet another attempt by the opposition to take some of the gloss off what are incredibly good amendments to this legislation. It supports people�s rights. It puts back some flexibility into the system, and it provides those parents who find themselves in this disastrous situation with some sort of hope for the future.

Why was it not good enough for you to do this in 1990 or 1991? Why was it not good enough for you to do it in 1993 or after the report in 1994? After the report was brought down in 1994, you had two full years. What did you do about non-agency payments? Nothing. What did you do about improving the rights of parents to have an appeal process? Nothing. You listened to them, but you closed your ears and your eyes and did nothing to help them. What we have done since being in government is to move this process forward. I condemn the opposition for playing politics with people�s lives. I had no intention of speaking to this bill for the simple reason that what we need to do is not make this a headline issue but simply rectify it so that people can get on with lives.

As the member opposite who chaired this report has said, we are dealing with the corpses of dead relationships, and they are awfully emotive. It is not in this forum or any other forum that we should be standing up here and trying to score political points when people�s relationships—

Mr Latham—What are you doing right now?

Mr BROUGH—I am responding to your pathetic attempt to pull yourself out of the quagmire which you put yourself in because you were unable to deal with it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Order!

I ask members to address their remarks through the chair.

Mr BROUGH—Mr Deputy Speaker, I accept that you would like comments to be addressed through the chair, but we get pathetic interjections like this which try to tell us that they were good enough and were going to do something. As the Treasurer (Mr Costello) often says, it is always the 14th year. With this issue you never had the numbers in your party room. You did not have the backbone or the spine to do anything to help either payers or payees. You stand condemned by your silence and your inaction when you were in government. The fact is that in opposition you hide behind the fact that you put legislation or amendments into this parliament knowing that they would not be enacted. I am very pleased that this government, the ministers and thebackbenchers have worked very hard over the last two years and that the steps we have taken are going in a very positive manner to address this difficult issue. It is unfortunate that marriages do break down. It is unfortunate that children are put into these situations, but this legislation will go a long way to assisting them, and the opposition has done nothing but put condemnation on their own actions as a result of their amendments tonight.

Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (5.45 p.m.)—I do not want to go through and outline to the House what our amendments actually are. But I do need to take up some of the remarks of the member for Longman (Mr Brough), who has said that we did not deliver in relation to this. Let us have a quick look at the history of the issue of direct payments in the child�s interest. The history of this issue is as follows.

The government brought forward its legislation, its amendment. It had absolutely nothing to say about direct payments in the child�s interest. During the second reading debate I flagged that, to pick up this issue, the opposition would move amendments in the consideration in detail stage that would allow the Child Support Registrar the discretion to credit certain non-agency payments as child support when, in the registrar�s opinion, these payments were in the interests of the child, subject to a 25 per cent limit.

Now, lo and behold, we find the government, after that second reading debate, coming into the chamber this afternoon with some amendments of its own. What do we find? We find schedule 11A, non-agency payments up to a limit of 25 per cent—picking up our suggestion in its entirety.

That is good. We welcome that. We intend to support the government�s amendments, as moved. But the point is that the only reason these amendments are now coming forward from the government is that we moved them from opposition. That will be quite clear to anyone who wants to follow the history of the legislation. I will make some remarks about the amendments we are proposing.

Amendments 2, 3 and 5 relate to the issue of fringe benefits and seek to pick up recommendations 143 and 144 of the joint select committee. We are concerned about avoidance issues, as the joint select committee properly was; therefore, we propose to move these amendments. The government has suggested that it is going to have an inquiry into these matters. An inquiry may or may not produce something of value, and we would be interested in hearing some more from the govern- ment on exactly what it is seeking to do concerning child support avoidance. But we are proposing, and will persist with, amendments 2, 3 and 5, which are directed to the issue of fringe benefits.

Amendment 4 goes to this issue of direct payments— the one we were proposing in the second reading debate, which the government has now picked up and adopted. We will be looking at the government�s response closely. But, on the face of it, it is something that we would be happy to support. We think there is a case for ensuring that non-custodial parents are more directly involved in the parenting of their children.

Amendments 6 and 7 relate to the issue of changes in income and the need for more up-to-date assessments. This is a hot issue on both sides, if you like. In a situation where the non-custodial parent�s income drops by less than 15 per cent of the estimated income, they end up paying child support which they are unable to recover but which does not reflect their actual income—and I think people are entitled to say that that is a bit steep. Conversely, you can also get the situation where, if your income drops below 15 per cent and you put in an amended assessment later, the custodial parent finds the tax office coming to them and saying, �Well, in fact, you owe the child support agency money�—and that is very difficult where you have spent that money or made other

provision for it. This is a hot issue both ways. There is a need to have more up-to-date income assessments. We do not believe that what the government has put forward is sufficient in this regard, although it represents an improvement—they are talking about the last taxation year, rather than the last taxation year but one. We feel that joint select committee recommendations 126 and 127 may be better in terms of addressing this issue, and we are keen to see more up-to-date assessments so we do not get into the problem of sudden changes in income.

Amendment 8 refers to the need for a review and the issues of future modelling, as picked up by joint select committee recommendations 162 and 163. We want to know whether the government�s review is addressing this and, if so, how. Regrettably, the task force that it set up was only for the government party; it was a secret task force. We want to find out some more about the nature of the review being proposed.

Amendment 9 concerns the issue of statements being made recklessly and picks up joint select committee recommendations 128 and 129. We feel that these are positive changes, that they would improve the operation of the child support legislation. Therefore, we do propose to support them here. Between here and another place, we had every opportunity to consider them further. (Time expired)

(See Labour proposed legislative amendments)

Mr MAREK (Capricornia) (5.50 p.m.)—I rise to speak on this topic—and I have spoken just about every time there was an opportunity—because, after listening to comments some of the speakers have rabbled on with today, I think it is absolutely imperative that some of the points be commented on. As far as the Smith amendments are concerned, I must say that they are easy to support. But, as far as I am concerned—

Mr Latham—Why don�t you vote for them then?

Mr MAREK—Already we have people interrupting, Mr Deputy Speaker. I demand to be heard in silence.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Order! I would ask members to address their remarks through the chair, and then we will not have any difficulties.

Mr MAREK—Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. As far as the Smith amendments are concerned, they are easy to support. But, as far as I am concerned—and I am sure that a lot of the people in the government or the committee are concerned—the amendments, or the way his process is concerned, there are other methods to make this happen. I am sure that there are. I believe that we could try to implement a system that would probably cover what Mr Smith is trying to achieve, but I think we could try to do it without creating more bureaucracy. That is something that the Labor Party always worked very heavily on—trying to introduce more bureaucracy. I guess that is the problem we have today. We have a Child Support Agency that is basically run by bureaucracy, and people just do not have a real opportunity in relation to fairness and equity. As far as that is concerned, that is my personal point of view.

The increasing of the discretionary amount by 10 per cent, I think, is a great initiative. It is something that a lot of the people out there, the non-custodial parents, have wanted for quite a while. I must speak to the comment we hear being made by the Labor Party that it wanted a greater increase. Why didn�t you do it? Why didn�t the Labor Party do it? Why don�t you vote for them then?

Opposition member interjecting—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Order!

Mr MAREK—They ask the question, Mr Deputy Speaker, they comment; you have to give them the opportunity.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Order! All remarks should be made through the chair.

Mr MAREK—I did, Mr Deputy Speaker; I am just giving them the opportunity. But, as we can see, Labor had no plans. They have no clothes and they have no credibility on this issue. You don�t. Let us have a closer look at it. We have the member for Chifley (Mr Price) over here. Why doesn�t the member for Chifley actually come clean and admit that Keating would not allow you to introduce the amendments that needed to happen? That is exactly what happened. You would never ever get any of this sort of stuff through; with your socialist welfare mentality, it just would not work. As far as this is concerned, Keating would not let it happen. I give the member for Chifley credit where it is due; the man tried to have a go but Keating and his people would not let it happen. You know damn well that that is the case; you just will not admit it. What does it say for democracy? Absolutely nothing. That is why I say to you that it is absolutely incredible that you people get up and talk about it. You have no credibility; you have no clothes on the issue and you should be condemned for what you say.

As far as the non-custodial and the custodial parents are concerned, in the last 2½ years we have delivered more for the people embroiled in this issue than the Labor Party has. It is very easy to see that. All you have to do is go out there and talk to the people who are representative of the people who are embroiled in it. There are various groups—Lone Fathers, all those sorts of people. They are genuine. They do not want to get involved in politics. They are not politically motivated or orientated. They just want a fair go. That is how I went about trying to get involved in this issue and that is what we have delivered—a fair go for all.

As far as I am concerned, there is more to be done on this topic. It is going to take some time. If people thought it was going to happen overnight, they were sadly mistaken. This is going to be a tough job to try to sort it out for everybody. Ultimately people have to understand the fact that if they are your children you have a responsibility to look after them. That is where the people who are on unemployment benefits and not paying child support come in. They will now have to pay the $260 per year. I will argue with anyone that that is a good initiative. People must be responsible for their own children and their own actions. Two hundred and sixty dollars a year is not a lot to ask to support your own children. The reduction of the custodial disregard amount to bring both closer together to make it fair and equitable is a great initiative. (Time expired)

Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (5.55 p.m.)—It is true that there is no area of government responsibility that draws emotions like family law and the Child Support Agency. That case has just been well put by the member for Capricornia (Mr Marek) in his rather emotional contribution coming on the back of the rather emotional contribution we heard from the member for Longman (Mr Brough), who said he had no intention of speaking on this bill originally but he decided that he had to get up and defend the government�s honour on this issue because, as he put it, the Labor Party was trying to make some sort of political capital out of this important issue. I have listened to this debate very intently. There are three things that we can all agree on. The first is that the child support scheme is a necessary scheme. I do not need to go over again the terrible situation we had in this country prior to the Labor Party�s introduction of the scheme where fathers in particular—

I do not want to single them out—were not taking any responsibility for their children. The second thing we would agree on, I think, is that in some cases custodial parents are being disadvantaged by the system. The system is not tough enough on those non-custodial parents who seek to avoid their obligation. The third thing I think we would all agree on is the fact that the pendulum has swung a little too far. My main reason for rising to speak is to clearly put my position on the record. I think the pendulum has swung too far and the whole system is acting to the disadvantage of non-custodial parents who, in the bulk of cases—at the risk of singling out males again—are non-custodial males. We go to the question as to what we are going to do about it. This raises again the charge from the member for Longman that the Labor Party has been politicising this issue. The Labor Party was doing something about it. In the chamber at the moment we have the member for Chifley (Mr Price), who did chair the joint select committee. That committee came up with something like 163 recommendations, many of which were adopted by the former Labor govern-ment. That report was around for about 18 months before the last election. I thought the progress on those recommendations was fairly good—not good enough, I accept, but pretty good.

Around that time, or just before the last federal election, the members of the now government were roaming the width and breadth of the country screaming blue murder about the inequities contained within the Child Support Act and promising to do something about it. Let us look at what they have done. The last time I spoke on this issue was in May 1997 when I was contributing to the second reading debate on the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1996. What a weak bill, indeed, that was. It did very little to assist non-custodial parents but, when challenged back then in May 1997, what did the government tell us? They said, �Don�t worry, we�re going to set up a task force and all will be well.� We don�t know who is on the task force. We do not know what their reference is; we do not know what recommendation is likely to come from it, but we are still waiting.

We are almost to the end of a full term of this government and we still have nothing that is going to give relief to non-custodial parents. Where is their integrity on this issue? I know this is a very sensitive gender issue but why can�t the parties put the politics aside? You have the member for Dickson (Mr Tony Smith) in here with a very strong view and with, I have to say, some amendments worthy of consideration. You have the member for McPherson (Mr Bradford) in here sharing the view, I think, of the majority. You have members of the National Party in here recognising that the pendulum has swung too far; so why can�t we, as a parliament, get together and sort out this mess? I invite the government to widen the membership of their task force and to include the Christian Democrats, to include the Labor Party and to include the Independents in this place. Let us see whether we can work together to make a better system. (Time expired)

Question (by (Mr Miles) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. [6.04 p.m.]

(Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr F.W. Mossfield)

Ayes ............... 65

Noes ............... 44 ——

Majority ......... 21 ——

AYES

Anderson, J. D. Andrew, J. N. Bailey, F. E. Baldwin, R. C. Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K. Bradford, J. W. Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H. Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R. Dondas, N. M. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Evans, R. D. C. Forrest, J.A. Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Grace, E. J. Halverson, R. G.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M. Hicks, N. J. * Hockey, J. B. Johnston, R. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E. Marek, P. McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R. McLachlan, I. M. Miles, C. G. Moylan, J. E. Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B. Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E. Pyne, C. M. Randall, D. J. Reid, N. B. Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C. Sharp, J. R. Slipper, P. N. * Smith, W. L. Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J. Taylor, W. L. Truss, W. E. Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S. West, A. G. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.

NOES

Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A. * Baldwin, P. J. Beddall, D. P. Bevis, A. R. Bradford, J. W. Brown, R. J. Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A. Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L. Evans, G. J. Evans, M. J. Ferguson, M. J. Filing, P. A. Fitzgibbon, J. A. Griffin, A. P. * Hatton, M. Holding, A. C. Hollis, C. Jenkins, H. A. Jones, B. O.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J. Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B. McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F. Melham, D. Morris, A. A. Morris, P. F. O�Connor, G. M. O�Keefe, N. P. Price, L. R. Quick, H. V. Sawford, R. W.
* Smith, S. F. Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J. Willis, R. Wilton, G. S.

PAIRS

Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C. Kemp, D. A. Kemp, D. A. Ruddock, P. M. Brereton, L. J. Scott, B. C. Grace, E. L.Williams, D. R. Ferguson, L. D. T.

* denotes teller

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put:

That the amendments (Mr Kelvin Thomson�s) be agreed

to.

The House divided. [6.10 p.m.]

(Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr F.W. Mossfield)

Ayes 42

Noes 67 ——

Majority 25 ——

AYES

Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A. * Baldwin, P. J. Beddall, D. P. Bevis, A. R. Brown, R. J. Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A. Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L. Evans, G. J. Evans, M. J. Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.
Griffin, A. P. * Hatton, M. Holding, A. C. Hollis, C. Jenkins, H. A. Jones, B. O.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J. Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B. McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.
Melham, D. Morris, A. A. Morris, P. F. O�Connor, G. M. O�Keefe, N. P. Price, L. R. Quick, H. V. Sawford, R. W. * Smith, S. F. Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J. Willis, R. Wilton, G. S.

NOES

Anderson, J. D. Andrew, J. N. Bailey, F. E. Baldwin, R. C. Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K. Bradford, J. W. Broadbent, R. E. Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H. Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R. Dondas, N. M. Draper, P. Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G. Evans, R. D. C. Filing, P. A. Forrest, J. A. Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T. Gash, J. Georgiou, P.
Grace, E. J. Halverson, R. G. Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M. Hicks, N. J. * Hockey, J. B. Johnston, R. Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E. Marek, P. McArthur, F. S. * McDougall, G. R.
McLachlan, I. M. Miles, C. G. Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B. Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E. Pyne, C. M. Randall, D. J. Reid, N. B. Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C. Sharp, J. R. Slipper, P. N. * Smith, W. L. Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J. Taylor, W. L. Truss, W. E. Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S. West, A. G. Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.

PAIRS

Beazley, K. C. Howard, J. W. Brereton, L. J. Ruddock, P. M. Ferguson, L. D. T. Williams, D. R. Grace, E. L. Scott, B. C. Sercombe, R. C. G. Kemp, D. A.

* denotes teller

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

Mr MILES (Braddon—Parliamentary Secretary [Cabinet] to the Prime Minister) (6.15 p.m.)—by leave— Go to additional Government CS Amendments concerning Non Agency Payments.

I would just like to make the following brief comments. Non-agency payments: the arrangements for direct non-agent payments in lieu of the child support liability have been changed to make them more flexible and allow payers more choice in the form in which child support is paid by them while protecting payees and meeting the basic needs of children. The changes are the following. Certain payments can be credited towards a payer�s child support liability up to a limit of 25 per cent without requiring the payee�s agreement, provided the balance of child support is paid. The following items will be included in the child support regulations: fees charged to the school or preschool at which the child is enrolled; essential medical and dental fees; payee rent, including

bond and body corporate charges; payee rates; payee mortgage; payee utilities; payee child-care

costs; and payee motor vehicle costs, including registration, insurance, service, tyres, repairs and panelbeating.

Thirdly, special circumstances will no longer be a criterion for crediting direct payments for up to 100 per cent of child support where both parents intend the payment to be for child support.

Fourthly, payments in kind will also be permitted where both parents intend it to be for child support.

Fifthly, payments will be able to be made this way from 1 January 1999.

This proposal is consistent with the JSC recommendation 67 that the Child Support Registrar be given discretion to credit certain payments that are made in the best interests of the child. The agreed items will provide a degree of certainty for payers making non-agency payments and they do not preclude situations where both parties intend that a payment or in-kind payment was for child support purposes, with the removal of the need to demonstrate special circumstances before payment can be credited. I commend the amendments to the House and present the supplementary explanatory memorandum.

Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (6.17 p.m.)—In view of the time, I certainly do not want to detain the House with an extensive debate on this matter. I simply put on the record that what has occurred is that the government has introduced in the past 24 hours amendments which appear to take up very much the thrust of some opposition amendments which were flagged during the second reading debate. We are pleased that the government has seen fit to take up amendments which we proposed. We note that they did this as a result of pressure from the opposition.

We will seek some explanation of the detail of these between now and the Senate, but on the face of it these seem to be reasonable and supportable amendments and therefore we do not intend to oppose them.

Mr BRADFORD (McPherson) (6.18 p.m.)—I believe that these amendments are in fact supportable, and I am pleased to hear the parliamentary secretary in the remarks that he made talk about the best interests of the child. Very often it is not the best interests of the children that end up being paramount in this particular debate. I take it that everyone is keen to have dinner before the reply to the budget by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley), so perhaps it would be unwise of me to go on at any length. I was disappointed that the government nevertheless saw fit to gag the debate while the opposition amendments were being debated. Some of them were supportable, in my view, but I was not able, because of the gag, to hear sufficient debate on them. I was disappointed that on balance I was, in a sense, notable to make a decision about the opposition amendments.

I was pleased to hear the member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson) say that he now understands that the amendments that have been introduced by the government in fact do pick up some of the opposition amendments. On balance, I would like at some point to find out which of those amendments have in fact been incorporated.

I wanted to say very quickly that the member for Longman (Mr Brough), who is not in his seat and will not be able to interject, was being slightly disingenuous in the remarks that he made. He talked about balance between the custodial and non-custodial parent. I have heard him on many occasions—I will not tell too many tales out of school here—complain about the lack of balance that there is now in the system. My friend in the opposition alluded to the fact that there was, despite the legislation we are dealing with today, a serious imbalance between the interests of the custodial and the non-custodial parent. The point is that this legislation does not yet go nearly far enough. Some of the amendments may have gone towards that, but that remains to be seen. I, like the member for Wills and the opposition, will watch the debate in the Senate. That seems to be, I might observe as a Senate candidate, the place where things actually get debated and seriously considered, so I am looking forward to being elected to the Senate in due course so that I can actually make a real contribution and listen carefully to what other people say.

I realise people are being very patient with me here. I asked the parliamentary secretary a question relating to that $260 a year payment. The answer really does concern me, though it will not cause me to oppose the legislation when it comes to a vote. I accept the argument that this is all about making parents responsible for their children. I totally accept that principle. But I now understand that, if someone is on the dole and they do not have an ability by virtue of that to pay child support, they will have $260 a year taken out of their dole. I am not sure that that has been spelt out by the government, because I have people who are very angry at the moment getting letters from the Child Support Agency telling them they owe money. They get them every month and every month the late fee is added. Every month they get the letter they get very angry; violent on occasions. I want to make the point because I do not think the point has been made clearly, and it slipped out, in an aside almost from the parliamentary secretary, in relation to people on the dole. They have often gone on the dole because they have given up on the system. They have been on a good income and they have just given up. They have said, �Look, I am throwing it all away. I refuse to deal with this system. I am going on the dole. I won�t have anything more to do with it,� and that is where they end up. Now, if you are on the dole, you will have $260 a year taken out of your dole. I am not arguing about the principle of people being responsible for taking care of their children, but I do not think that has sunk in. If you are in that family situation we have talked about where you are struggling to pick up the pieces and you have a new relationship with a person who has three children for whom she does not get any assistance from her former husband, you are in a mess if you are on unemployment. And the government is now going to take $260 off them. Come on! Let us make sure people know that that is what the government�s intentions are. Although it probably should, it will not cause me to vote against the bill because on balance it is an improvement. Let us hope that it is further improved with the amendments. But that does concern me.

Mr BROUGH (Longman) (6.23 p.m.)—I want to correct the record. The member for McPherson (Mr Bradford) said that I was disingenuous with my comments. That is totally incorrect. The fact is that this system had imbalance in it. We are trying to redress that balance, and this goes along way towards it. If there is one thing that both sides agree on, it is that we are both trying to redress that balance.

Mr PRICE (Chifley) (6.24 p.m.)—I want to say to the parliamentary secretary that, having had a look at the explanatory memorandum a second time, I still stand by those earlier figures, but could he just respond to a couple of issues? What was it that motivated the government to pick up the 10 per cent figure? Did they do modelling and was that the result rather than the 20 per cent recommended? What prompted the new average weekly earnings figure that is used for disregarded income as opposed to the pension cut-off point? Having commissioned the University of New South Wales study into the cost of the children, could he advise the House in what way this study has influenced the government�s decisions in this bill and these amendments? In relation to the amendments, why was the additional 35 per cent by mutual agreement in terms of non-agency payments not picked up, given that, at the urging of the shadow spokesman, the honourable member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson), they have picked up the 25 per cent, and I applaud them for that?

Mr MILES (Braddon—Parliamentary Secretary [Cabinet] to the Prime Minister) (6.25 p.m.)—With respect to what the member for Chifley (Mr Price) has just requested, I do not have those details here with me, but I will look into that for him and provide him with an answer. I am happy to do that. I know that the member for Chifley has done a lot of work on this in the past and has a very genuine record in this area.

To correct the record for the House, I made the statement that 25 per cent of non-agency payments would start from 1 January 1999. That is incorrect; it is actually 1 July 1999.

Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Third Reading Bill (on motion by Mr Miles)—by leave—agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 6.27 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Return to CSA Intro Page