Senator MARGETTS (8:52 PM) —As honourable senators will notice—assuming this is the right time to do it—I have amendments to Labor's amendment (4). With regard to Labor's review of certain amendments, paragraph (a) is problematic because it compares the relative disposable income of custodial and non-custodial parents, which is not really the point here. What we want to monitor is the impact of this bill, especially the formula changes in private collection and payments in kind. We have sought clarification from the opposition on what this seeks to encapsulate and whether it specifically addresses the changes in the child support legislation. That is still a little unclear. The times of review and date of commencement are inferred at the beginning of the amendment.

We are seeking an undertaking that the changes in the bill are specifically addressed. Our amendment seeks clarification from the minister that she previously gave an undertaking that 25 per cent payment in kind would be monitored after implementation. I am expressing concern about what could be used with regard to the details relating to relative disposable income and what those kinds of inquiries have potentially been used to do. I am worried about (1)(a) but we support (1)(b). Our amendments do add to that and are more specific in relation to the adding of income splitting; the use of trusts; the use of private companies; capital investments; the use of incentive payments; voluntary superannuation contributions, including those exceeding nine per cent of the parents' taxable incomes; lease depreciation expenses and interest payments; prior year losses; capital losses; losses generated by businesses or investments; and partnerships and assignments of income.

We would also add a section (c), which would add to the inquiry that consideration of the effects of compulsory private collection arrangements between parties should include the ability of either parent to reapply for Child Support Agency collection; the level of child support arrears; the implications for the legal system; and the level of parental conflict and child contact difficulties. We would like to support and expand those elements in relation to section (b), but if the majority of the Senate is in favour of section (a) then so be it. However, that area seems unclear in terms of how it specifically relates to this legislation, what it might be used for or why it is being promoted.