Prasad Rajen: Child Support Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Prasad Rajen: Child Support Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8287. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 And a call to follow I hope. As I was saying—[ 
Interruption 
] The members opposite do not want to hear the arguments and particularly the two members moving around the Chamber have not actually provided any explanations in this debate about why they have taken the views they have taken. 
I was saying before the dinner break that no adequate explanation has been provided from Government members for not really taking the opportunity in the debate on this Child Support Amendment Bill to address the purpose of the bill. Particularly in Part 2 we do not see that addressed. The purpose of the bill is quite clear. It is to improve the fairness of the child support system and to promote the welfare of children. That is why it is called the Child Support Amendment Bill. But we do not actually see that. We do not see fairness really being improved and the welfare of children being promoted in the way that this Parliament has an opportunity to do. 
If the members opposite did internalise that if the Government did internalise that then they would write a requirement around the best interests of children the paramountcy clause if you like. That was the consistent advice from all of our major Crown entities in this field—all of them. Yet there is no response to that. [ 
Bell rung 
] Mr Chairman. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Dr Prasad. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: What a wonderful call. Thank you Mr Chairman. It was a shame that the members opposite did not take that call. When we really pushed—and I do not blame the officials for this because it is a Government responsibility—as to why was it so difficult to do the answer was that the Inland Revenue Department did not have the expertise. It could have bought that expertise quite easily. When it is prepared to spend well over $100 million on the provisions of this bill it is prepared to spend that on systems and yet it was not willing to make that expenditure in order to get that result. I think what the Government did say in the end was that “Well if we think it is a question we will ask the Children’s Commissioner to make some comments about that.” 
So the Government did not really consider it from that point of view. It would actually have been an incentive to parents to both parents to both sets of parents if indeed a requirement like the best interests of children was actually written in because parents even when they separate are interested in the welfare of their children. They are not interested in just paying the money over which is entirely what this bill is about—just paying the money over; how how much when what happens when you do not and how to work out how much you pay—but if the Government had written in that type of clause it would have changed the face of the child support system because there would have been a requirement for everybody involved to consider what was in the best interests of children. 
That I guarantee would have changed it because we know that parents do not mind paying over their responsible part when they know that that goes directly to the children. That is when they are happy to do that that is what all the evidence shows us and that is what people before the Social Services Committee told us as well. So why was that principle not adopted in Part 1 of this particular bill? It was not. It was just totally blind to what this bill was about. I just do not understand why members opposite did not take that particular opportunity. It was too easily dismissed and that begins to show us something about the attitude of Government members to the interests of children in every bill that comes before the House and in particular this one. If it did it would have given serious consideration to what was recommended by the Children’s Commissioner. This would enable parents to pay directly—enable what they pay to be transferred to their children if you like—or to promote the interests of the children. 
That is a very well-thought-out policy. There are countries that actually do that. The Inland Revenue Department did give us the costings of that as well and in the scheme of things the scheme of raising people out of poverty that was affordable in a country of this type. Yet there was no interest in doing that. Part 1 of the bill provides the opportunities to have it included but it was not. So it looks as if price was the only consideration for members opposite. 
I want to also turn to new section 14 in clause 9 of the bill. Here is a provision that relates to when the commissioner has to decide establish proportions of care and how the commissioner is to go about doing that. New section 15 is quite telling particularly when you go to subsection (5)—and paragraphs (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) and (f) have been excluded. Now it is to be done by the commissioner deciding the proportionality or the proportion of care that the parent gives: “on the basis of the amount of time that the carer is the person responsible for the daily care of the child.” That is the only principle. 
The ones that have been taken out are quite telling because they go as follows—and this is how the responsibility for the decisions about daily care were to be made how they were to be shared: who is responsible for taking the child to and from school for example and how decisions about the education of the child are made. There was a whole series of considerations to be taken in and that is in the Act that is being amended. What that anticipated if you like was that there was a requirement to think through a bit more than just the proportions of care. That is one of the failings.