Turner Judy: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Turner Judy: Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:633;Page:5153] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to refer to a couple of submissions that relate to Part 2 of the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 4). One was a submission—I think it was submission No. 3—from Robert Kilkolly who talked about the fact that the contribution made by liable parents should entail a fair and equal share of child-related expenses from both parents by taking into account the income of both parents. 
This is one of those issues that fell outside the framework of this amendment bill but in the notes that members of the Social Services Committee got from the officials there was a very encouraging note made on the submission to say that the very excellent Minister of Revenue has already instructed officials to consider whether recognition should be given to lower levels of shared care than the current threshold of 40 percent of nights. That is a very encouraging thing. I think it is good to note that while we are dealing right now with some recognised issues the ongoing work on this matter is being done. 
The other thing I want to talk about is the area of exemptions which is clarified in this legislation particularly the area of exemptions for victims of sexual offences. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
JUDY TURNER 
: Just before we broke for tea I was talking about exemptions for liable parent payments. Those people fall into two broad groups. The first group is those who are not earning income. They are “kept” in the sense they are either in long-term hospital care or in prison and therefore unable to contribute to liable parent payments. The second group which has been mentioned by earlier speakers is those who have been the victim of sexual offences. I do not think anybody has mentioned the point that the last thing victims want is ongoing contact of any kind with their assailant. They do not want that person’s money or to have any information that links them to any Government department whereby their names are linked through a process by which payments are made. They want to have no contact at all. This provision acknowledges that very real requirement on the part of victims and honours it. 
Part 2 tidies up a lot of bits and pieces. I mentioned earlier some concerns raised by submitters about fair and equal sharing of child-related expenses taking into account the income of both parents. This is one of those issues where political parties irrespective of party affiliations should make some commitment to see that cause advanced in the future. I mentioned earlier that the Minister of Revenue the Hon Peter Dunne is aware that submitters raised a whole lot of extremely worthwhile issues for future consideration. He has already instructed his officials to consider whether the current 40 percent of nights threshold for child support should be reviewed. He considers that to be a very blunt instrument and when we look at what has been happening with new amendments to the law in Australia they are looking at the whole issue of how much it costs to raise a child and whether we should have some fixed cost that we all acknowledge is maybe age-appropriate in terms of its determination. 
I want to make one point in that regard because several submitters felt very aggrieved that as their wages went up if they got a second job or if their financial situation improved the requirement by the Inland Revenue Department for their payments went up as well and they felt very concerned about that. We should remember that we are talking about the needs of children and in a family where mum and dad are together if their financial circumstances improve then the children are the beneficiaries of that improvement. When we adjust liable-parent payments to reflect improvements in income because it should not make any difference whether mum and dad are together or are living apart the child should be the beneficiary of those changes.