|
Source: Comment
In his May 2005 report In the Best Interests of Children Professor Patrick Parkinson recommended long overdue reform of Australia’s child support scheme, which was created in 1988 to address the needs of children left disadvantaged as a result of family separation.
It is clear that the child support scheme, however well intentioned, has lost its relevance to families and can no longer meet its objectives.
During the past couple of years I have conducted some of Australia’s most comprehensive case study research on this issue.
What I have uncovered is an alarming number of parents, in the majority fathers, who are not only being denied a significant place in their child’s life by the Family Court but are then being driven to desperation, and in some cases suicide, by one-sided and discriminate legislation and a relentless bureaucracy called the Child Support Agency.
In his recommendations, which are still being considered by the Government some nine months after their release, Professor Parkinson and his taskforce advocate a scheme under which the costs of children are first worked out based upon the parents’ combined income, with those costs then distributed equally between the mother and the father in accordance with their respective shares of that combined income and the levels of contact they have with their children. The resident parent is expected to pay his or her share of the cost in the course of caring for the child. The non-resident parent on the other hand pays his or her share in the form of child support. Whilst in the past the resident parent has received a much more generous entitlement to self-support expenses, the new scheme would give both parents an equal component for their own support.
In addition to this fundamental change, perhaps the most important element of Professor Parkinson’s recommendations is a change to the way in which the ‘capacity to earn’ principle is applied.
Capacity to earn is perhaps the most contentious element of the current child support scheme and the one most damaging to paying parents and indirectly, to their children.
At present the Child Support Agency has the power to assess a person’s capacity to earn based on their pre-separation employment status. So, if a man is earning $65,000 as a structural engineer at the time of his separation, the Child Support Agency expects that man should still be able to earn $65,000 in the months and years that follow.
Currently, the agency will not take into account factors including a person’s physical or mental state, their personal aspirations to begin a new career or indeed their desire to work reduced hours in order to spend more time with their children.
This notion of capacity to earn is enforced rigorously by the Child Support Agency and more often than not leads to the payer amassing both a debt to their child and to the Commonwealth in late payment penalties. In some cases, the debt remains even long after the child has grown up and left home. In these cases, the debt becomes due to the ex-spouse, rather than the child.
These sorts of situations can lead to severe depression, anxiety and in extreme cases suicide in men who tend not to seek help. These sorts of emotions not only affect the parent but also their child.
In the Best Interests of Children recommends that the Child Support Agency be limited in its ability to increase an assessment based on capacity to earn. The agency must consider, in making its’ decision, the person’s state of health and their own caring responsibilities. Where the agency declines to make a determination in a capacity to earn case due to the complexity of the issues raised, the agency will be required to refer the matter to a court.
This change, in addition to the new formula, can only ensure a fairer system for all.
However I believe the reforms should go further.
If capacity to earn is to remain an enforceable issue, the rule should be applied equally to both parents. If both parents are capable of work, they should both be assessed on that capacity. The issue of how child support money is spent needs also to be addressed. There is a severe lack of accountability on the part of resident parents, which further inflames family tensions.
I also believe that we need to do more not only to reform the legislative framework of the scheme but also the administrative make-up of the Child Support Agency.
Many of the thousands of cases reported to me include complaints about the knowledge and attitude of call centre staff and a perceived abuse of power by decision makers.
In a system where more than 90% of payers are men, who in most cases are emotional and unsupported in unfamiliar territory, it is unthinkable that the Child Support Agency staff is 72% women. Compounding this situation is the fact that the people on the front line are the lowest paid, least experienced members of the Child Support Agency team. They are not trained to deal with conflict.
The Child Support Agency, like many Government agencies, is a customer relations nightmare that needs to be addressed.
In addition to reforming the law, we need to reform the way in which it is administered. We need to eliminate the bias which so clearly exists and we need to recognise that child support is not about money, it is about people. More importantly it is about ensuring both parents meet the responsibility of supporting their children in a fair and equitable environment.
|
