Men's Rights Agency - Child Support
Coalition rejects Child Support Tribunal posted 19/5/98
(There are a number of links to speeches, and proposed
legislation on this page. Please use your "Back" button to return to this
page)
The recent minimal changes to child support legislation announced by Senator
Jocelyn Newman on 30th September 1997, were put to Parliament for a 2nd reading
on Thursday, 14th May 1998. Many politicians from both sides of the House,
feel the changes have not gone far enough and have privately expressed their
disappointment the amendments will not alleviate the difficulties paying
parents have in servicing the high levels of child support demanded under
the current formula.
However, Coalition politicians, surreptitiously rejected a proposal put forward
by Tony Smith (Lib MP for Dickson) to replace the internal CS review process
with an independent tribunal system. The Review Office (now called Departure
Office) has come under severe criticism and a tribunal hearing held under
the auspices of a magistrate would overcome many of these criticisms. A Tribunal
would allow for evidence to be heard under oath, without the presence of
solicitors/barristers and the legislation would enable a fairer determination
of the level of child support needed, taking into account the current situation
of both parties. A further significant improvement would allow the magistrate
to consider whether contact (access) was being denied and take appropriate
action to restore contact.
(See Tony Smith's
speech to Parliament) (See
detail of proposed changes to legislation to incorporate Tribunal hearings)
Claims have been made that this is the first time in 20 years a member of
the government has gone against the wishes of the party by bringing forward
their own amendments....and the government was faced with a dilemma, whether
to vote against one of their own, leaving them open to claims of disunity
as the opposition spokesman for CS, Kelvin Thomson alleged
(See Kelvin
Thomson's Lab MP for Wills speech) or to allow their party members a
conscience vote.
In an obviously planned move the coalition members absented themselves from
the house at 5 pm when the Tribunal amendment was rescheduled for further
discussion and vote. John Bradford (Ind. MP for Macpherson)
(Go to John Bradford's
first speech) who supported the introduction of the Tribunal pointedly
noted in a later speech on the day "there are no government members
in the chamber, with the exception of the Minister for Customs and Consumer
Affairs (Mr Truss), the parliamentary secretary and the member for Dickson".
(Go
to John Bradford's second speech)
Each and every coalition member of parliament should be asked to explain
why they were not prepared to be present in the House to represent their
constituents in this crucial debate and subsequent vote.
The Labour Party did not support the Tribunal idea with the exception of
Roger Price(Lab. MP for Chiffley and Chairman of the Joint Select Committee
in Child Support Inquiry), but he wanted to establish an internal appeal
process before resorting to an external appeal, such as the
Tribunal.(See
Roger Price's Speech). As you will read Mr Price was extremely critical
of the minimal changes the Coalition have introduced asked the Parliamentary
Secretary "Does he agree with the explanatory memorandum that Peter
Costello and John Fahey through this child support amendment bill will in
fact be between $26.2 million and $47.297 million better off. Is this what
the Coalition government considers to be real reform in the child support
area."
Mr Price went even further and commented that the bill before the House should
be referred to as a consolidated revenue measures bill rather than a child
support amendment bill, noting "the big winners are not the children,
are not the parents, but consolidated revenue presided over by the Treasurer
and the Minister for Finance".
These amendments do little to alleviate the problems for paying parents and
some of the measures a going to make it much tougher...Every person, even
those on pension benefits will have to pay a minimum of $5.00 per week for
their children; income losses claimed legitimately through ATO negative gearing
legislation will now be added back into the income used for child support
assessment and the increase of 10% to the paying parent's disregarded income
will mean only $3-4 dollars will be put back into their pocket. That's hardly
going to "keep the wolf from the door" when one is left with as little as
$30 - 40 per week after paying child support, tax and rent and one or two
essential bills. That $30 - $40 dollars has to pay for food, clothing, transport
and the cost of their children if they are lucky enough to have contact (access).
In an effort to sweeten these minimal changes the Government
(Mr Miles
speech) introduced a late amendment allowing paying parents to claim
up to 25% of the monthly child support in other payments (Non-agency payments).
If both parents agree to the NAP's then 100% can be allowed. Currently under
this system, the NAP form has to be signed by both parties and if the payee
parent refuses to sign, the application will most likely to be rejected.
Then it is a matter of making application to the review office (now called
the Departure Office) which may or may not be successful. However, the new
amendment places limitations on the items that can be claimed and we fear
these may be carried over to all Non-Agency Payments. The items allowed are:
fees charged at school or pre-school; essential medical and dental fees;
payee rent including bond and body corporate charges; payee rates; payee
mortgage; payee utilities; payee child care costs; payee motor vehicle costs,
including registration, insurance, service, tyres, repairs and panel beating.
There are many other items provided by the payer, yet it appears that if
they do not fall within the above categories they may not be allowed Further
problems may be caused if the 25% limitation is carried through to determinations
made by the Departure office. Currently, non agency payments under Grounds
6, 7 or 9 can be 100% allowable.
(See proposed legislative
amendments)
Future changes on the drawing board are unlikely to be favourable to the
payer and more in line with a money-grab to offset the high amount of family
allowance payments that provide for the children of sole parents.
If a payer has persistently failed to meet his or her child support liability
the Child Support Registrar will have the power to prevent departure from
Australia. A Departure Prohibition Order can be applied by the Child Support
Registrar and will not have a time limit, but will remain in force until
the debt has been paid or satisfactory arrangements have been made. The
imposition of a DPO will not need court approval.
Orders of this nature preventing an Australian citizen their freedom of movement,
without judicial determination are akin to the worst human rights abuses
in third world countries. What happens if the debt is in dispute or on appeal;
will this prevent seamen, airline pilots and business men with overseas work
contracts or commitments from continuing with their job and most importantly,
who in the CSA will make the first determination that a payer has "persistently"
failed to meet their child support liability?
Introduction of another inter departmental committee (IDC) will examine the
diverse manner in which all forms of income are received, and taken into
account for the purpose of child support assessments. The IDC will examine
various sources of income available to payers and payees such as salary
sacrifice, use of corporate structures, second jobs and overtime.
Some consideration is to be given to denial of contact (access), even though
there is no direct legislative link between child support and contact. The
Tribunal proposal would have provided this link. A small number of pilot
services will be provided to offer immediate assistance to resolve the the
conflict. Compulsory diversionary programs will be available for parents
convicted for breaching an order. As you will be aware the Courts have been
extremely reluctant to enforce their own orders if the offender is the mother,
on the other hand if the father breaches an order he will likely find himself
committed to jail. Instead of persuading the Courts to apply the same solutions
for men and women these program will provide them with a soft option solution.
It is to be hoped that both fathers and mothers will be treated equally and
ordered to attend this compulsory counselling instead of applying the harsher
penalties to fathers only.
Labour amendments proposed on the day
(See Labour
Amendments)(See
Kelvin Thompson's speech) concentrated on trying to reel in fringe benefits
that could be added to the assessment income. A similar treatment was suggested
for Non-Agency Payments, but with the percentage set to only 35% in the case
where parties agree, instead of 100% as with the Government legislation.
Generally, they supported the Government's amendments and dismissed Tony
Smith's Tribunal concept.
The Government's CSA task force chairman, Larry Anthony
(speech) acknowledged
the problems with the review process and undertook "to ensure that those
people who are the actual review officers are not only properly qualified
but also properly remunerated. Their remuneration is actually based on the
success of the case, which tends to focus on quantity rather than quality".
The basic problem with the child support legislation is the formula ....
its application result in an unrealistically high level of child support.
The recently released Cost of Children study prepared by the University of
NSW would appear to set the necessary levels of child support at a much lower
level. For more information on this subject go to
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~divorce.
Tony Smith made mention of the higher Lee figures, based on "expenditure"
and the lower Lovering figures based on "the basket of goods approach". The
higher Lee figures, often quoted in Family Court were used in the creation
of the formula.
(Go to
Tony Smith's 2nd speech). Analysis of the Lee survey raised the issued
that expenditure does not equal cost and as Tony Smith so rightly points
out "the problem with the expenditure survey approach is that it is
said to be based on a regression analysis. Even in the expenditure survey
approach we can see in the document references to the expenditure approach
and then cost as if those terms were interchangeable—they are not. So
inherent in the survey is an inherent defect."
Even more worrying are Tony Smith's ongoing comments "attempts to track
down Mr Lee to find out exactly what that means have been unsuccessful. The
document upon which it is based is at the moment unprocurable, yet the document
is being peddled by the Institute of Family Studies and frequently forms
the basis of orders by courts as to the amount of child support to be paid
and government policy in this area."
(Go to Costs
of Children for Lee & Lovering figures)
For your information we have put on line the complete events of Thursday
14th May. It makes interesting reading and provides insight into the real
views and intentions of our politicians and political parties.
Go to Child Support
Debate Part 1
Go to Child Support
Debate Part 2
Return to Child Support
Introduction Page