SUBMISSION
To the Social Services Committee on the Child Support
Amendment Bill (No.4)
1.
This submission is from Stuart
Birks, Director, Centre for Public Policy Evaluation,
2.
The objective of the Centre for
Public Policy Evaluation is “To facilitate the achievement of excellence in
research in priority areas and to develop its domestic and international links.
The focus will be on economic aspects of policies in a multidisciplinary
context.” The work of the Centre
has included, among other things, research and publications in the areas of
family law and law and economics.
3.
I do not wish to appear before
the committee to speak to my submission.
4. There are some good aspects to this Bill. In particular, there are commendable proposed changes to the legislation i) for young liable parents, ii) in cases of liability by a victim of a sex offence, and iii) in relation to penalties. Unfortunately, in the broader context of child support legislation as a whole, these are largely cosmetic.
5. The Centre made a detailed submission on an earlier Child Support Amendment Bill in 2001. There, it was pointed out that there are fundamental flaws in the legislation. In particular, the objects of the Act cannot be met if the specified formulae and other conditions are followed when determining the amount of child support due from a liable parent.
6. Points to note include:
6.1. The failure of the formula to consider the income of the other parent (so how can contributions be equitable?).
6.2. Failure of the formula to consider direct costs incurred by a liable parent in relation to the children (in particular, in terms of the 40% of nights threshold and the distinction between costs of “enabling” and “enjoyment of” access).
6.3. Weaknesses in the use of gross income as a basis for child support, e.g in cases of student loans.
6.4. Lack of a clear, meaningful basis for the formula in terms of the true costs of children.
6.5. Lack of any specification of the purposes to which child support, received by a parent with care of a child, is to be put.
6.6. Lack of any accountability to the liable parent for the ways in which child support is used.
6.7. Lack of any clear indication that the legislation is to be guided by the “best interests of the child”.
6.8. The need for child support reviews to be conducted by people with the relevant knowledge of possible income levels, costs and benefit entitlements.
7. A 2004 Colmar Brunton report commissioned by the Inland Revenue Department (“Child Support Social Marketing: Formative Research”) considered the possibility of a social marketing approach to improving child support compliance. Rather than simply trying to achieve compliance by liable parents through persuasion, it may be more effective to design child support in such a way that they are more able and willing to comply. Progress could be made in this direction by addressing the issues in (6) above.
8. The Care of Children Act is a move towards recognition of the ongoing care giving responsibilities of both parents. The current structure of the Child Support Act reflects the attitudes prevalent in a predominantly “sole custody” environment. It is therefore outdated and out of step with other aspects of family law.
9.
Problems with child support
were anticipated very early on. As long ago as
The Minister said that the legislation will enhance the rights of
children and of custodial parents. Our judgment is that it will not enhance the
rights of children and custodial parents, and it will place a considerable
number of non-custodial parents in a position of considerable difficulty.
And:
Only a tiny proportion of the State's total outgoings will actually
be recouped by this system compared with the $1.3 billion that is spent on
benefits. So there is not a lot of point in getting too bound up in the
argument of recouping the money because at best we will recoup a little under
10 percent of the cost of the benefit system that supports parents and children
in that position.
Subsequent experience would
indicate that these concerns have some justification.
Recommendation
That there be a comprehensive review of the child
support legislation so that assessed child support liabilities can be clearly
demonstrated to be fair and equitable and that the objects of the Act be made
consistent with other aspects of family law.