The Male Suicide Issue

Dads Against Discrimination Inc
ABN 82 053 905 623

Child Support Angency

Here's the transcript (courtesy of Larry Anthony's office media release)of the interview between Larry Anthony and John Laws on CSA.

Hon. Larry Anthony, MP
Minister for Community Services

TRANSCRIPT OF THE MINISTER FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES, THE HON. LARRY ANTHONY, MP RADIO INTERVIEW WITH JOHN LAWS, 2UE 9 OCTOBER 2000

SUBJECT: CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY

E&OE

Laws: Earlier I mentioned the problems with Child Support, people are obviously becoming desperate if they are prepared to throw away a highly paid job and go on the Dole simply to reduce the Child Support, either desperate or bounders. Community Services Minister Larry Anthony is overseeing some of these changes and he's on the line. Good morning Larry.

Anthony: Good morning John.

Laws: What's prompted these changes?

Anthony: Well there are basically 5 changes but 3 major changes that will be debated this week in the National Parliament. What I've been trying to do is to try and put some more fairness and equity within the Child Support system and basically there are the 3 main elements, John. The first is to ensure that if you have contact with your child for under 30% of the time, of course this is when a relationship breaks down, that we recognise that there are costs involved and so we amend the formula so if you have your children for 10% of the time, lets say you are the non-custodial parent, then that's recognised in the formula. And I believe that if there's greater contact it also means a greater ability for the children to lead a more balanced life.

Laws: But what you're saying is that you're going to have to pay more for greater contact?

Anthony: No, what we're saying that if you do have contact at the moment it's 30%, if you have your child under 30% of the time then it's not recognised within the Child Support formula. But of course you've still got the costs of feeding the children, housing and clothing. What we're saying now, well if you have contact for at least 10% of the time we will recognise it in the formula and that means you pay a little bit less. The other area...

Laws: But that bothers me. I mean, if a father goes, and it is mostly the fathers that are the bastards I'm sorry to say, there is no one to pay to support their children. If they leave the child and feel so badly as many do that they don't want to pay for the support of that child, all they'll do is see their child less and pay less money.

Anthony: No, no, no. At the moment the formula is that if you have contact with you're child for under 30% of the time then under the current formula you are not in a position to claim any of the funding to raise those children. Currently the proposal is that if you have contact with your child for under 30% of the time then we'll recognise that. Now, if you have 1 child, 18% of your gross income goes on the Child Support Agency. If you have 2 children, it's 27% and up it goes.

So if you have contact and if we get through these legislative changes, it means that below that time it will be recognised in the formula so in this case, if you have 20-30% contact with your child then that will be a 3% reduction in the formula so it means you will only pay 15% of your gross income.

Now the rational for this is recognising that there are costs involved if you look after your child, particularly if you are the non-custodial parent but also under the new changes to the Family Tax Benefits, and under the new tax regime we're also ensuring that custodial parents aren't worse off because on average there is about a $50 increase per fortnight. Of course they're the main carers and we have to recognise that.

The other point of course, John, is the second families and what we're finding now is that if you enter a relationship, you have children, that relationship breaks down, you enter a second relationship, then it's very difficult, particularly for the wives of the second relationship to have any type of income that can be use to raise those children. I believe and I think all Australians believe that if you bring children into the world then you have responsibility to look after them.

Laws: Yeah, well, and the way it use to be, the first time I got divorced, the judge said 'You pay X' and that was it. And you just paid X and X and X and X and X until she remarried or the child turned 18. That system seemed to work alright.

Anthony: Well, part of the reason the Child Support Agency came into being in 1988 was the situation where many of the non-custodial parents weren't paying maintenance. I think there was a real measure there where a number of sole parents were in desperate situations because they didn't have enough money to look after their children. It was introduced so what we're trying to do...

Laws: But there are still a lot of parents, a lot of fathers not paying support and doing anything they can to get out of paying support.

Anthony: Well that's true. That's why the Agency is there, that's why we pursue individuals as best as we can to ensure they do pay their maintenance and part of the reason on this contact issue, certainly research has indicated that if there is greater contact then there a much higher propensity for maintenance to be paid. Ultimately we want this money to go through to the children because that is where it should be.

The other measure, which you introduced in your program regarding those on higher incomes. Currently if you earn over $101 000, you fall out of the Child Support Agency. There is no more payments required. What we have advocated is to change that, to bring it just under $80 000 where we amend the formula where it is 2 ½ times all employees average weekly earnings. That includes part time and casual workers.

There is some anecdotal evidence that with those higher income earners, not all of course, that with child support, because you're paying it on your gross income, that is before tax, that some in that situation don't make their payments because some of them choose to get out of those job. That is another reason why last year we introduced a minimum payment, even if you are on unemployment benefits, to ensure there is a least some money going to the custodial parent and ultimately going to the children.

Laws: Tell me, is the earning capacity of the former partner taken into account? I don't think it is.

Anthony: No, it's not taken into account.

Laws: Well, why not?

Anthony: Well always the rationale has been that, well sorry, it is taken into account once they earn over $31 000 then it's a sliding scale, John. And of course if that person remarries then the income of her or his husband or wife is not taken into account. There is a disregard element of over $31,000 and that is basically a 50 cent in the dollar reduction.

Laws: Right. OK. It just bothers me, I don't think anything really is being done to make sure people continue to display the responsibility that they automatically should have for children they bring into the world.

Anthony: Well there is over 900 000 children now that go through the Child Support Agency, there 's over 1.1 million mums and dads that go through the agency and we have seen much greater compliance, around 86% now and that is to the credit of the Child Support Agency.

Laws: If it is that high, that surprises me, 86% compliance.

Anthony: 86% compliance. So a lot of these measures, certainly around the edges, it's a process, as I say, a process of evolution, not revolution and these are very targeted measures. We are trying to assist a lot of those parents particularly that other 14% who are in great difficulty and to try and put more equity and balance and ultimately to get greater compliance so the money will ultimately go to the children.

Laws: That is the most important thing. Thanks Larry for your time.

Anthony: Thank you.

ENDS

For further information or feedback on this site email us at minister.anthony@facs.gov.au

Top of Page

Visit the DADs Australia Website

Top of Page