Logie Jan: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLogie Jan: Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 20 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7392. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take a call on this the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16 Research and Development and Remedial Matters) Bill which deals substantially with child support—although you certainly would not know it from the title. The Green Party is supporting this bill for many of the reasons that have been outlined by my colleague Julie Anne Genter in her previous contribution so I would like to restrict my contribution to talking about child support and possibly a couple of other points if I have time and do not talk too much.When we look at the number of changes to the child support system in this bill I think that it is important to realise that only 2 years ago this Parliament considered legislation for the amendment of child support. That piece of legislation went to the Social Services Committee and there was a very very thorough consideration of child support issues. Yet here we are about 2 years later with quite significant amendments before we have even had the opportunity to see those changes truly bed in. It needs to be restated that while that legislation was being considered the Opposition did raise concerns about the ability of the Inland Revenue Department to deliver a very complex formula and the system that may be required to implement that and as a result of that legislation passing we have seen the overrun for the implementation of that new formula being estimated to cost $180 million. That is the overrun for that project—around $180 million. We are seeing significant amendments coming back to this House less than 2 years later.To some of the substance of those amendments that are being put in front of us—they are extending the requirement for the Commissioner of the Inland Revenue Department to write off certain penalties and they are providing also for an opt-out option for parents if they both agree to treat payments as a private matter rather than as a liability through the Inland Revenue Department. I would like to speak about each of those points separately and I notice that in the submissions to the select committee—although I did not sit on it—there were no submissions from the social sector from people who on a social level may be dealing with families that are experiencing a break up and are needing to use this child support system.I thought there was a useful contribution from Baucher Consulting which has quite a few clients who are using that system. It noted that the outstanding debts around child support were $3.2 billion as of December 2014 which is a phenomenal amount of money. I think that we would have benefited from this bill rather than it going to the Finance and Expenditure Committee being considered again by the Social Services Committee in the context of 1996 research: a safety survey that showed that 70 percent—70 percent—of separated women had experienced some form of domestic violence. If the assumption is that the lack of payment is purely because people are struggling to get the administrative things in place I would tell this House that that is not the experience of most organisations and most women who are struggling to get their child support payments.We know that child support is used as a weapon in violent relationships and that factor needs to be considered when we are making changes to the legislation. I have not seen any evidence that that has been properly considered in this piece of legislation and that is a real shame because it should have been. I totally understand that the penalties may have been disproportionate and not working as an incentive and I would love to see that recognition applied by this Governmentin other areas. I believe it is unfair that those penalties accrue to the Inland Revenue Department and not to the family and the children themselves to get the benefit of that extra money. In summary—because I am being told to wind up—there is a lot to say about this bill and I do not think that all of these different policy points should be in one piece of legislation but we are on balance supporting this legislation.