Mr PRICE (1:42 PM) —This is an amendment to the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 that was moved by the opposition in the Senate and came in a form unacceptable to the House. I would like to thank the government for picking up this initiative. However, I need to just place on record a few observations. In terms of repairing the income base, of their own volition they have picked up negative gearing. At the urging of the opposition they are now looking at fringe benefits. But there was a whole raft of other proposals in the report to repair the income base.

The point that I would also like to make, of course, is that using taxable income is becoming increasingly less appropriate in terms of trying to determine people's capacity to pay. As we see the phenomenon of salary sacrifice really taking off, unless we are able to have these things adequately quantified then, of course, people will be able to obviate their payment.

I would like to point out to the parliamentary secretary that the abuse of trusts, the transfer of property, and a whole raft of other proposals that were in the original report have yet to be adequately addressed. The report, of course, was always a balanced one but I would point out that the failure of the government to act in repairing the income base in terms of child support in a much more breathtaking way really affects those people who have residency—that is, the parent who has the residency of the children.

I just want to say that I agree with the parliamentary secretary that it did take a long time to go through the House. I want to place on record that it is now some four years since the report was originally delivered. The recommendations in terms of changes to the formula were on the basis of the barest minimum necessary to restore some fairness and equity. Quite frankly, now some four years after the report, I think we need to seriously move on in relation to child support and try to develop approaches which are fair and equitable to children and parents.

I want to place it on record that, prior to the last election within my party, I sought to seek a provision in reviews which would have allowed a departure on the basis of discrimination against children. If that departure were sought, it would allow the household income of both parents to be examined. Then if it were, on reasonable balance, clear that a child or group of children in one household were able to be less supported than in another, we would allow a departure. If we are looking at all the anomalies in child support, it is this area of second, third and fourth families that is the most contentious and, indeed, the most urgent.

I would hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in closing the debate in this House—I do not propose to speak again—would indicate to the House what might be the timetable for further changes to the Child Support Scheme and, indeed, what might be the process of reform to the Child Support Scheme. She might indicate those things to the House, because I can assure her of one thing: whilst I am happy to concede that there are some improvements in this bill, we are not going to be able to satisfy either ourselves or people caught up in the Child Support Scheme that all the reforms that need to be undertaken are undertaken.

I have one regret, and that is that the processes of this House really do not permit a more bipartisan approach. Just as there are quite a number of opposition members wanting to see further reform of the Child Support Scheme, it is equally true that there are government backbenchers that want to see further reform. We will be derelict in our duty if we do not take that challenge up in this parliament.