Main page

Mr ATKINSON (Isaacs) (12.50 p.m.) - I welcome the opportunity to speak in today's grievance debate. I would like to bring to the attention of honourable members of the House the persistent dissatisfaction of many of my constituents over their dealings with the child support scheme. Whilst I acknowledge and welcome the inquiry by the Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Law Issues on the child support scheme, according to my constituents who are part of the scheme, it is long overdue. From my conversations with many constituents, who are both custodial and non-custodial parents, I am concerned that the Child Support Agency seems to be operating as an unguided missile, and that it is making decisions on people's lives without consideration of the facts and individual circumstances.

In many cases, these constituents have not requested to become part of the scheme, but have been locked into the legal process once it has been instigated. It is obvious that there is a considerable amount of frustration amongst people involved in the scheme—a fact highlighted recently when the Joint Select Committee into Certain Family Law Issues conducted a hotline on 21 and 22 July of this year. A staggering 150,000 callers tried to get through on these two days.

I would like to bring before the House a few examples of the problems encountered in dealing with the Child Support Agency which have been relayed to me by some of my constituents. My first example relates to a non-custodial parent. Although this constituent is operating through the legal system, I have serious concerns that he is not getting fair treatment. The taxation department carried out a tax audit of his accounts and found that he made a tax loss for the financial year. Even though this loss was assessed by the tax department's own auditors - the same department responsible for the Child Support Agency - he was assessed by the Child Support Agency as having to pay exactly the same as when he had been making a profit.

Owing to the way the system is established, he is required to go back to the court and appeal against this assessment. He has to provide a set of transcripts which, at a cost of $3,000, he cannot afford. As a consequence, he is unable to take action to reduce the amount of payment that currently exists. Because he has property, it has been seized and it is to be sold to repay amounts to satisfy the unfair judgment exercised by the Child Support Agency. The properties are rented, but they are mortgaged. A sale currently would not return any more than the mortgage payouts. All it does is leave this client with no alternative to bankruptcy.

The second example relates to the situation of another non-custodial parent who remits $540 to the Child Support Agency per month. He advises that his ex-wife is about to purchase the family home and that she will be using his child support payments to repay the mortgage. Following an assessment by the Child Support Agency, and after allowing for tax, superannuation and rent, his fortnightly income is $361, compared with his ex-wife's income of $995. He has told me he is living close to the poverty line following the unfair assessment of his situation by the Child Support Agency.

The third example relates to a custodial parent. This constituent has advised me that she has not had any maintenance paid to her since 1983. She started communications by both letter and telephone with the Child Support Agency in March 1991 and regularly kept the agency informed of her ex-husband's whereabouts. In spite of her constant contact with the agency, it was unable to track her husband down. She subsequently contacted a solicitor and then took the case to the Commonwealth Ombudsman. There are arrears of some $24,860.63. She has now been advised by the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office that the Child Support Agency will not attempt to collect the proceeds until sometime after June 1994, owing to the magnitude of the debt and its lack of funding to undertake such a case.

Many of my constituents have voiced general concerns about the scheme and the agency. Firstly, communications from the Child Support Agency come in an easily identifiable envelope. When a letter is returned to the agency marked `Not known at this address', this should not be taken as evidence that the person has actually left that address. However, I have a case where a constituent advised the Child Support Agency of his change of address, but his 85-year-old pensioner mother received communications from the agency, including a notice to provide certain information which stated that she would incur a maximum fine of $2,000 for non-compliance.

Secondly, the rate for one child is 18 per cent, based on the taxable income of the non-custodial parent, who is allowed only $13,276 exempt income if he or she has a new partner and one child, while the custodial parent has over $32,063 exempt income. I find it difficult, on a comparison of the two situations of $13,276 and $32,063 exempt income, to accept that situation.

Thirdly, if the non-custodial parent wishes to have a review carried out by the Child Support Agency, he or she must supply details of debts, amounts borrowed, reasons for borrowing, the amount paid out each week and to whom, and a list of the current debts, plus a list of assets following the same criteria. When it receives this, the Child Support Agency then photocopies the forms and sends them off to the custodial parent. This means that the custodial parent has a dossier of the current financial status of his or her ex-partner.

Fourthly, the custodial parents have to wait for two months at the commencement of maintenance payments before funds are deposited in their bank accounts. If the custodial parent is receiving a pension, he or she must advise the Department of Social Security of any maintenance received over $16.05 per week so that pensions can be altered accordingly.

The lack of communications from the Child Support Agency and the holding back of payments for two months, combined with not being told that payments have ceased, means that custodial parents often find themselves not receiving a consistent amount of money and, therefore, they experience considerable hardship in endeavouring to maintain their financial status.

Fifthly, there is an obvious lack of communication between the Department of Social Security, the Australian Taxation Office and the Child Support Agency. Where a non-custodial parent changes employment, in spite of where he or she may relocate, the new employee tax form, which gives details of the tax file number and commencement date of employment, should be sufficient evidence for the tax department to ascertain his or her whereabouts.

In conclusion, we pride ourselves on the rights and freedoms of people in this country. There are many flaws in the process of the Child Support Agency's system at the moment that need to be addressed. In the many cases that I have cited, I would like to see justice be seen to be done.