Mr SCHULTZ (5:55 PM) —I rise tonight to bring to the attention of the House the desperate situation the Child Support Agency is in. The staff members of the Canberra branch of the CSA I have met seem dedicated, intelligent, friendly and understanding. Indeed, their commitment would lead me to believe that, in general, customer service through the CSA is high quality. The reality is, however, that the underlying regulations that govern the Child Support Agency indicate it is an organisation in desperate need of an overhaul. The reason for my assumption? At least once a week a constituent visits the electorate office to make a complaint as a payer or a payee of the Child Support Agency: they are not getting enough support, they are paying too much support or their ex- partner has given an incorrect assessment of their income. These and many other complaints are continually serviced by telephone, fax, correspondence and in person in the Hume electorate office in Goulburn.

After looking at this case I can confidently assert the main problem with the CSA: legislation does not allow the flexibility in particular cases that it needs to. We seem to have introduced legislation in the past that sets strict guidelines on an issue that has many complex and emotive factors attached to it. My biggest concern is that 10 years after the introduction of this legislation, which took place in the late 1980s, almost one million parents are using the Child Support Agency to assess, register or collect child support. Between 1997 and 1998, $1.2 billion was transferred between parents for the supposed benefit of their children. Why is this a concern? Why do there seem to be so many holes in the CSA system when it impacts on almost one million people, and this does not include the children? Why does the CSA's policy seem to be biased towards certain groups of the population when, as a representative of the Child Support Agency said, `There are two parties involved, so we need to be fair.' Every child support case is different and each case needs to be dealt with keeping this in mind. It is impossible to apply a few pieces of legislation to every case that walks through the door of the Child Support Agency.

This realisation brings me to my main concern and the reason I rise on this occasion: why does the agency assess all aspects of the payer's salary or wage, including overtime and fringe benefits tax? I cannot count the times a payer or a family of a payer has contacted me to outline their distress with this section of child support. Most parents accept that they must support their child but, increasingly, payers are finding it impossible to start a new life and make a living when up to 75 per cent of their earnings is taken in child support maintenance.

Sadly, this kind of financial pressure has led to a number of occurrences that, with changes to CSA policy, could have been avoided. I recall one mother who contacted me to say her son was a payer of child support, and that his friend, also a payer of child support, had committed suicide. We only have to turn on the news to see cases where fathers, in desperation and emotionally torn, murder their children and take their own lives. Sadly, their attitude as they dive deeper and deeper into despair is: `I'm not allowed to see my children. I'm not allowed to start a new life. I'm leaving this world and I'm taking my children with me.' Mothers caught up in parental dispute unfortunately decide to do the same. Another case which I have been dealing with recently is a prime example of this problem. I will read you an excerpt from one payer's correspondence with me:

I am divorced with two children. I now pay 75 per cent of my take-home pay in child support. I still spend a lot of extra money on clothing, travel and other things on my children.

This payer has particular concerns about the inclusion of fringe benefits tax in child support calculations. I will continue reading from the correspondence:

When I travel to another location for work as my job requires the trip from my workplace to the motel will be assessed as private travel. These new changes will greatly affect the way I carry out my job. No longer can I work back after work or stay overnight in another location.

This payer, like many others, feels he has nowhere to turn. Everything he does is being assessed and included for child support. I am grateful that this individual has not given up yet. He is still working hard to make a living. Many others do not. They gave up long ago and decided that rather than work their butts off trying to get ahead and getting nowhere they would quit work, go on the dole and thus pay little or no child support. The only way we will see a decrease in complaints, a removal of child support related emotional and physical heartache—indeed sometimes suicide and murder-suicide—happier parents and, most importantly, happier children is to radically alter the method used to calculate child support. (Time expired)

Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 6.00 p.m., the debate is interrupted.

Mr Abbott —Mr Speaker, I require that the debate be extended.

Mr SPEAKER —The debate may continue until 6.10 p.m.