CHILD
SUPPORT
The
Child Support Scheme was introduced in 1988 to
strike
a fairer balance between public and private
forms
of support (for children) to alleviate the poverty
of
sole parent families.
The aims of the Scheme are that:
*
parents share in the cost of supporting their
children
according to the capacity to
pay,
*
adequate support is available for all children of separated
parents,
*
Commonwealth expenditure is limited to what is
necessary
to ensure that those children's needs are met,
*
neither parent is discouraged from participating in
*
the overall arrangements are simple, flexible,
efficient
and respect personal privacy.
could
only be obtained by the parents reaching an
agreement,
or by seeking an order from a Court.
This
meant
that child support was effectively denied to those
parents
who could not reach an agreement with their
former
partner, or could not afford to taken court
Even
where court orders were obtained,
the child
support
amounts ordered were often unrealistically low.
Court
orders were also inflexible.
Many did not
for
Court
The
rate of payment was also poor.
It was estimated
that
less than 30%
of parents in Australia who were
ordered
to pay child support did so regularly.
The only
remedy
available to parents to enforce child support
payments
was the costly, time consuming and often
ineffective
process of seeking an enforcement order through
(Child Support Agency, Fact and Figures,
parents
who separated before 1 October 1989 and don't
have
a child born after that date.
They can only
have
the Child Support Agency collect payments if there
is
a court order.
Stage 2 applies to parents who
separated
after 1 October 1989 or who have a child born
after
that date can make a private agreement or, if they
can't
agree, the Agency can assess how much child
support
should be paid, according to a formula.
If the
residential
parent is getting Social Security payments
then
the amount the parties agree to must be at least
what
would be payable under a child support assessment.
Number
of children
1
2
3
4
5 or more
Child
Support
Percentage
18%
27%
32%
34%
36%
Even
if the assessment has been correctly made under
the
formula, it can still be changed if there are
special
circumstances such as if the child has high medical
expenses,
the cost of caring for or educating a child
in
a way the parents had intended or the assessment
has
not taken into account the income, earning capacity,
property
or other assets of a parent or child.
In
1997, the Scheme came under close scrutiny by
policy
makers.
A Federal Backbench Committee has been
aggressively targeting it for what we consider to be
regressive
changes.
Changes announced in October,
although
not as harsh as anticipated, still provide us with
reason
to be concerned.
Positive
changes were: the introduction of a minimum
child
support payment of $5 per week by all payers even
those
on income support;
and the inclusion of net
rental
property losses and exempt foreign income which
means
payers will have less opportunity to minimise
their
taxable income and therefore reduce their child support
liability.
in
non residential parents paying less child support.
Amongst
these a 10% increase in the amount of exempt
income
for payers and a substantial lowering of the
payee's
disregarded income will result in losses to
residential
parents and their children.
There
is a move to encourage parents into mediation
and
private collection arrangements and thus bypass the
Agency.
In fact, where the Child Support Agency deems
that
a "good payment record" exists (whatever that is
-
it could just be that the pay clerk is good at their
the move to private collection will be
compulsory.
This is worrying as a good payment record will not
necessarily
continue if the compulsion to pay is
removed
and payment becomes voluntary.
Mediation is not
appropriate
in all situations and has the potential to
encourage
women to accept less than their children's
full
entitlement.
seems
to be a current backlash in relation to the
Child
Support Scheme, apparently fuelled by conservative
MPs
who claim that residential parents have had it too
good
for too long at the expense of non residential