Division Description Changes — Bills — Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2018; in Committee — 9th May 2018

Change	Division
senate vote 2018-05-09#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2018-05-31 13:13:35	Title Bills — Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2018; in Committee Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2018 - in Committee - Retrospective application Description ~~<p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p>~~ ~~<p>The question is that Senator Pratt's amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8425 be agreed to.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p>~~ The majority voted in favour of keeping [part 2 of schedule 1](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr5976_third-reps%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr5976_third-reps%2F0000%22;rec=0#5eaa6ce3e3cc4a508d30fa29bb1d9a05) unchanged. In parliamentary jargon, they voted for that part to "stand as printed". This vote was put after Labor Senator [Louise Pratt](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/louise_pratt) moved that that part should be opposed, [explaining that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2018-05-09.4.2) the Labor Party was concerned "that the retrospective application of amended child support assessments will have negative consequences". Read more about [the bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5976) and what it does in the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1718a/18bd079). <p>As I highlighted yesterday in the chamber, in relation to the need for these amendments on sheet 8425, our concern is that the retrospective application of amended child support assessments will have negative consequences. I take issue with what the minister said yesterday in reply to this concern, which was along the lines that it would only apply in the case of an actually accrued debt. I can't recall exactly how the minister framed it. But, in that context, I need to ask the minister this specifically: if someone is paid child support and they are on a low income, how would the problem of them acquiring a debt be addressed when it is unsustainable for them to pay it back to the person who paid the child support reasonably and it was received in good faith?</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Concetta Fierravanti-Wells</p>~~ <p>Senator Pratt, can I just make one thing clear. This measure does not create debt. The debt already exists. Can I just underline that. The debt already exists, whether this measure passes or not. The important thing about this measure is that it provides a mechanism for people to identify the debt early rather than letting it mount while they go through the current lengthy process. So I underline: the debt already exists; this is about the process. This is about a mechanism for identification of that debt early in the piece, rather than letting it, as I said, mount up while you go through the current lengthy process. I add that the measure will allow overpayments or underpayments to be identified and addressed earlier. This means that the overpayment or underpayment would be less than under the current process, where debts can accrue while the lengthy assessment takes place. It will not change how these overpayments or underpayments are settled.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p>~~ <p>Our concern, which I don't think the minister has addressed, highlights what happens when debt accrues. For example, the median income of child support recipients in Tasmania is only $22,195 a year. They have extremely low median incomes, whereas child support recipients in the ACT have, on average, $42,000 in median income. You can see that even a small reduction in child support or other payments can have a big impact on a family in terms of their cost of living. We believe it is unfair to place the child support recipient in an even more precarious financial situation because of another person's mistake, which is what we're talking about here.</p> <p>We recognise that there is also a need for legislative change, but sometimes honest mistakes do happen, which is why we believe it's important that the Child Support Registrar can amend a child support assessment—and this is the effect of the amendments we will put in to follow these ones if we fail in knocking this out—so that it reflects the true financial situation of both parents. An example given to us was of someone who'd had an incorrect tax assessment.</p> <p>We believe that the bill as currently drafted does not provide adequate protections to ensure that retrospective determinations cannot place a child support recipient and their children in a precarious situation. These are important and sensitive issues. This is why we have amendments before this place which would give the Senate more time to carefully consider the way to make this change. The amendment that we are debating removes schedule 1, part 2—which deals with changes to amended tax assessments—from the bill. Let's be clear: I would like the chamber to support this amendment.</p> <p>The CHAIR: I'm going to put the question in two parts. The first question is that part 2 of schedule 1 stand as printed. That would mean that those opposing part 2 would vote against this question.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Concetta Fierravanti-Wells</p>~~ <p>Can I have a clarification? I thought that the question was going to be put on these two together. That was my understanding of what we decided yesterday. I'm happy to have clarification on that if you would kindly assist. I thought that the two questions would be put together.</p> ~~<p>The CHAIR: They have different outcomes, which is why they've been split. I think it might have been reported incorrectly yesterday.</p>~~ ~~<p>If Senator Pratt is happy for that approach—</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p>~~ ~~<p>I'm happy to have them put separately.</p>~~ <p>The CHAIR: I will repeat what we're doing here. We are splitting it into two parts. The first question is that part 2 of schedule 1 stand as printed. Those opposing part 2 would vote against this question. The question is that part 2 of schedule 1 stand as printed.</p>

~~Sue Lines~~
~~The question is that Senator Pratt's amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8425 be agreed to.~~
~~Louise Pratt~~
The majority voted in favour of keeping [part 2 of schedule 1](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr5976_third-reps%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr5976_third-reps%2F0000%22;rec=0#5eaa6ce3e3cc4a508d30fa29bb1d9a05) unchanged. In parliamentary jargon, they voted for that part to "stand as printed".
This vote was put after Labor Senator [Louise Pratt](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/louise_pratt) moved that that part should be opposed, [explaining that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2018-05-09.4.2) the Labor Party was concerned *"that the retrospective application of amended child support assessments will have negative consequences"*.
Read more about [the bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5976) and what it does in the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1718a/18bd079).
As I highlighted yesterday in the chamber, in relation to the need for these amendments on sheet 8425, our concern is that the retrospective application of amended child support assessments will have negative consequences. I take issue with what the minister said yesterday in reply to this concern, which was along the lines that it would only apply in the case of an actually accrued debt. I can't recall exactly how the minister framed it. But, in that context, I need to ask the minister this specifically: if someone is paid child support and they are on a low income, how would the problem of them acquiring a debt be addressed when it is unsustainable for them to pay it back to the person who paid the child support reasonably and it was received in good faith?
~~Concetta Fierravanti-Wells~~
Senator Pratt, can I just make one thing clear. This measure does not create debt. The debt already exists. Can I just underline that. The debt already exists, whether this measure passes or not. The important thing about this measure is that it provides a mechanism for people to identify the debt early rather than letting it mount while they go through the current lengthy process. So I underline: the debt already exists; this is about the process. This is about a mechanism for identification of that debt early in the piece, rather than letting it, as I said, mount up while you go through the current lengthy process. I add that the measure will allow overpayments or underpayments to be identified and addressed earlier. This means that the overpayment or underpayment would be less than under the current process, where debts can accrue while the lengthy assessment takes place. It will not change how these overpayments or underpayments are settled.
~~Louise Pratt~~
Our concern, which I don't think the minister has addressed, highlights what happens when debt accrues. For example, the median income of child support recipients in Tasmania is only $22,195 a year. They have extremely low median incomes, whereas child support recipients in the ACT have, on average, $42,000 in median income. You can see that even a small reduction in child support or other payments can have a big impact on a family in terms of their cost of living. We believe it is unfair to place the child support recipient in an even more precarious financial situation because of another person's mistake, which is what we're talking about here.
We recognise that there is also a need for legislative change, but sometimes honest mistakes do happen, which is why we believe it's important that the Child Support Registrar can amend a child support assessment—and this is the effect of the amendments we will put in to follow these ones if we fail in knocking this out—so that it reflects the true financial situation of both parents. An example given to us was of someone who'd had an incorrect tax assessment.
We believe that the bill as currently drafted does not provide adequate protections to ensure that retrospective determinations cannot place a child support recipient and their children in a precarious situation. These are important and sensitive issues. This is why we have amendments before this place which would give the Senate more time to carefully consider the way to make this change. The amendment that we are debating removes schedule 1, part 2—which deals with changes to amended tax assessments—from the bill. Let's be clear: I would like the chamber to support this amendment.
The CHAIR: I'm going to put the question in two parts. The first question is that part 2 of schedule 1 stand as printed. That would mean that those opposing part 2 would vote against this question.
~~Concetta Fierravanti-Wells~~
Can I have a clarification? I thought that the question was going to be put on these two together. That was my understanding of what we decided yesterday. I'm happy to have clarification on that if you would kindly assist. I thought that the two questions would be put together.
~~The CHAIR: They have different outcomes, which is why they've been split. I think it might have been reported incorrectly yesterday.~~
~~If Senator Pratt is happy for that approach—~~
~~Louise Pratt~~
~~I'm happy to have them put separately.~~
The CHAIR: I will repeat what we're doing here. We are splitting it into two parts. The first question is that part 2 of schedule 1 stand as printed. Those opposing part 2 would vote against this question. The question is that part 2 of schedule 1 stand as printed.