Turner Judy: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Turner Judy: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15813] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future for the first reading of the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill. Although this bill makes changes to the eligibility of retirement village residents—so that they can apply for the accommodation supplement—and also adjusts the way in which stand-down periods are calculated for seasonal workers who move on to the benefit it is kind of inevitable that the focus of today’s debate has been the changes to the penalties for a domestic purposes benefit recipient who fails to name the other parent of her child when applying for child support. 
On the one hand the bill increases the penalty from the current $22 per child by an additional $6 per beneficiary but on the other hand the bill widens the exemptions for a reduction in the benefit under section 70A of the Social Security Act to include the situation where there is risk of violence to the beneficiary or her children and the situation where no child support is able to be collected for some reason—for instance the death of the liable parent. 
The Government has indicated that its aim is not necessarily to create a more punitive system but to get beneficiaries to name liable parents. United Future would certainly be supportive of anything that would effect that kind of change. It wants parents to pay child support and to take greater responsibility for their offspring and that is a very noble thought. 
I do not believe that this is a great money-making exercise for the Government. About 15 percent of domestic purposes beneficiaries have their benefits docked for not naming the father so that measure may save $6 per beneficiary but it would be more worthwhile if more fathers paid child support at even the lowest rate of $13 a week which apparently is about 70 percent of what liable parents pay at present. 
However I think this whole debate about section 70A penalties would be a lot more enlightened if we had a lot more information about why mothers do not name the father or apply for child support. I think Katherine Rich mentioned that numbers of beneficiaries have both parents on the certificate but do not claim that support and we need to address that issue. There is a theory that some separated parents are effectively colluding to avoid the child support system. I think Ms Newman referred to suggestions that some fathers pay their ex-partners on the benefit less than their liability for the child in return for not being named in domestic purposes benefit applications. That way both the mother and the father are better off because the mother gets the benefit plus the extra cash while the father pays less than the law requires. 
It is probably more realistic to assume that many of those who have had their benefits docked from the beginning have simply become accustomed to getting by without that money yet to increase the amount would perhaps give beneficiaries the opportunity to reassess their position about naming the other parent. 
Although we will support this bill in its first reading I need to signal several areas within the bill that we think the select committee will have to give further consideration to. One of the issues is the additional exemptions to the section 70A penalty. Currently this applies where the child was conceived through rape or incest or where there is insufficient evidence to establish the other parent’s identity. The addition of the risk of violence uses the definition in the Domestic Violence Act to include physical sexual and psychological abuse. Muriel Newman argues that this will open the way for more “deadbeat dads” who will get away with not paying child support because they have been violent or abusive but I would imagine that fathers’ rights groups would argue that this new exemption strengthens a mother’s ability to shut them out of children’s lives by making false allegations of abuse. 
I would question the inclusion of domestic violence. Presumably it has been included due to the concerns that filing for child support would further enrage the abusive parent and place the family at risk. But if we were to use the same test as in the Domestic Violence Act then the law has already established the occurrence of abuse and some kind of protection order or restriction on access is already likely to be in place. I do not want to devalue the severity of domestic violence or the need to ensure the ongoing safety of a family but that is somewhat separate from the issue of ensuring that the father contributes to the financial cost of raising the children. In those situations there is usually little question of who the father is but there are also situations where the father through his own violent and abusive behaviour has denied the children his presence in the home and the associated financial contribution. 
Those fathers need to be held accountable not only for their criminal behaviour but also for their obligations to their children. The Government may know who those men are but at present without the mothers’ consent it cannot file for child support. So in addition to scrutinising whether the threshold for an exemption should be lowered in this way I would like the committee to give serious consideration to the proposal that the State should be able to file for child support if the mother is unwilling to do so. 
Furthermore once paternity or child support liability is established I see no reason why the State could not set backdated child support payments from the liable parent going back to the child’s birth. I would also like the committee to consider whether another $6—not per child whose father is not named but per beneficiary—is sufficient to achieve the kind of outcome the Government wants. I agree that that amount needs to be reviewed. I realise that the penalty is intended as a symbolic gesture in order to achieve a salutary effect but in this case I really think it is worth considering increasing the amount to make it more meaningful. 
Ultimately we need to look more broadly at the whole system of child support such as raising the minimum amount of child support payments to better reflect the cost of raising a child rather than reviewing the financial situation of the liable parent. Another possibility is to pass liable parent contributions directly to the custodial parents on benefits as is the case with custodial parents in paid employment. The domestic purposes benefit could then be reduced by the amount of child support yet liable parents—and for that matter custodial parents—would be able to see their money going directly into their children’s upbringing and I believe that compliance would increase as a result. I realise that those moves are beyond the scope of the bill but they signal our intention to seek wide-ranging changes to the system of child support in the future. 
I would also like to pick up on some comments I think Sue Bradford unwittingly made that acknowledge I believe the weakness of the Care of Children Bill. That bill posits more equitable parenting arrangements yet I believe that it is pure window dressing because it is quite clear that unless the Government is prepared to review and reassess the benefit system there is no way it can facilitate shared parenting orders of any kind. The benefit system is just not flexible enough to allow that kind of arrangement. 
Therefore the Care of Children Bill becomes a bit of a nonsense. We change some unpleasant terminology but the outcomes are exactly the same because we will not address the benefit system to reflect the kinds of orders that I believe the ACT party would support because of Ms Newman’s long campaign for shared parenting arrangements and I am sure that that would get the support of other parties as well. 
As I said before we are very keen to support this bill in its first reading but we are very keen that the select committee looks very closely at some of the arrangements we think could be reviewed as part of that process and that it has the courage to make the kinds of changes we are recommending.