Moroney Sue: Child Support Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Moroney Sue: Child Support Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8298. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 At the outset of my contribution on Part 2 of the Child Support Amendment Bill can I just place on record the bizarre bureaucracy-speak that pervades throughout this bill including in Part 2 where strangely the person whom I would call the primary parent who actually is providing the main parenting role is described as a “carer” and the person who does the paying and not so much of the parenting gets the word “parent” attached to them—“liable parent”—as opposed to the primary carer. It is something that I would like to see in future actually resolved through this bill because it does seem to me that we attach the word “parent” in quite the wrong situation there. I would much prefer to see the word “parent” actually applied to the person who is providing the role of parenting not to the person who simply pays the money for the role of parenting. I think we have got that round the wrong way. Primarily Part 2 is actually about when it all goes pear-shaped. I guess in some ways you can say that it has probably all gone pear-shaped before families are even dealing with this bill but this is when after the relationship has broken down there is a problem with the liable parent—the payer—actually paying what they ought to pay. This is the part that actually attempts to deal with that. 
I was not on the Social Services Committee. I did attend briefly to hear a bit of the conversation that was going on around this bill but I am not a permanent member on the select committee. I was surprised to learn that the Government would not contemplate looking at one of the most effective ways of dealing with liable parent debt and contributions by considering the idea of a pass-on mechanism because there is international evidence that one of the best ways to actually improve liable parent payments is to ensure that they know that the money they are paying is not getting lost in some black hole of a huge administrative system but in fact is finding its way to their child or their children and supporting their upbringing. I am just surprised that the Government was not prepared to at least look at that particularly given that we have this huge debt of $2.3 billion outstanding. And as I think previous contributors to this part of the debate have pointed out that has revved up significantly under this Government’s watch. 
When this party in Government was in Opposition it cried crocodile tears over half a billion dollars’ worth of debt in this regard and now that it is at $2.3 billion well it is not even really concerned enough about it to look at one of the most effective ways that happens internationally of making sure that that debt does not continue to accumulate. However in fairness roughly $1.6 billion of that $2.3 billion of debt is actually incurred in penalty payments. Clearly the current system of penalty payments is not working. It is certainly not working because what obviously happens it would appear is that once the liable parent accumulates a debt and they start incurring penalties it becomes even more unaffordable for them and so they just continue to ignore it and ignore it and ignore it and hope that it goes away. In fact it does not go away; it just keeps going into an accounting exercise that blows out to be $2.3 billion. 
But in behind that $2.3 billion is actually a story that the Government does not want to talk about and that is the problem of child poverty. Yes even this part of the bill which is all about how we can try to get payments happening and a range of issues around penalties and relief and formula assessment and debt collection really does again underline the issue that is at the heart of this which is about how we get those resources to the children who need them. I am really disappointed to hear Government members opposite say that this bill has got nothing to do with children—that it is all about parents and it is all about administration and it is all about payments. What do they think this is all about? Where do they think this is all ending up? If it is not about the children if it is just about some bureaucratic exchange of money and it is an accounting exercise what on earth are we here debating child support legislation for? 
It is as if they are completely divorced from the real world. It is as if they are completely divorced from what really goes on in these families because if they do not understand the link between what this bill does the exchange of finances and the proportions in which it is moving that finance then they really need to get out there start talking to their community and hear what is really going on. I know that some of the members opposite think that because of their personal experiences they have got this nailed. They think they know all about it because they may have personally taken on a new family and personally been responsible for paying for them but this is about a whole range of families’ experiences; it is not about them. It is not about those members opposite and their personal situations; this is about a whole range of situations. 
I do want to ask some questions of the Minister in the chair Mr Woodhouse because we see in clause 26 of this bill that we are giving the courts some discretion to actually change the formula assessment in the situation where a re-establishment cost exists. I was very interested to understand what “re-establishment cost” actually refers to. What it refers to is two situations it would appear to me. I just want to check with the Minister that I have got this right. The first instance that it applies to is that the court may change the assessment criteria and formula if in the first 3 years after the relationship has split up the financial situation of the liable parent changes in a way where the contribution that they are required to make would be 30 percent or more of their income. That is what I understand that that part means and I would like some clarification that I have got that right. 
That does not bother me so much but the next bit I am not so sure about. I think it then goes on to say that this re-establishment cost could include the court being given the ability to change the formula assessment because the liable parent has got responsibilities for a new family now. I would really like some clarification on that because that is actually quite a departure I think from where we have been and I think that that has some real implications with it. Are we giving the court the right to change the formula assessment based on the liable parent who often seems to be the parent who has made the decision to leave the initial family unit setting up a new family within 3 years? That could actually often mean that they have left that family for another family because it is quite soon after the relationship splitting up. Does that mean that they get some sort of financial benefit for that? Because that is how it reads to me. I think that raises some real questions. It raises some real questions. 
Watching the members opposite who have been on the select committee either they do not know whether I am correct or not or they are feeling a bit embarrassed by what I am raising. I am not sure. They do not seem to be responding at all about the issue I am raising here. But I would like a response— 
Mike Sabin 
: Because you’re not making any sense. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Well the member Mike Sabin says it is not making any sense. If I am wrong I would like to know that but the way I am reading it Mr Sabin—and you might tell me whether I am right or wrong—is that correct me if I am wrong within 3 years if the liable parent has a whole new family that they are establishing and that they are financially responsible for the court has got discretion to change the formula assessment for their commitments to their original children—to the children whom this bill is trying to address. Am I correct in that? 
Mike Sabin 
: Oh you’ve confused me. 
SUE MORONEY 
: I am confused—so I have got it wrong? I would really like that member please to take the next call and explain it to me. Maybe I have got it wrong. I am putting my hand up and saying I could potentially have that quite wrong but that is the way I am reading this bill. I would like some clarification on that because it is quite—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Annette King 
: I wouldn’t take notice of what he says. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Well I really am looking for direction on it because that is how it reads to me. And if I have got it wrong then I will feel quite relieved. But if I have got it right then I would be really quite concerned about what analysis we have had and what official advice the select committee has had that tells us what the impact would be on the original family and their children. That is quite a significant departure.