Senator NEWMAN (Minster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women) (4:41 PM) —I thank Senator Evans for his contribution just now. Last night we did spend quite a lot of time talking about research, and I think he, perhaps accidentally, today made a claim that I had talked about research of the Price committee. I did say that one of the biggest research efforts possible was done in fact during the course of the Price committee, because so many people used the free telephone line to the committee. They were inundated with calls which cost many thousands of dollars of the committee's resources, as I recall. If you like, that can be called a research exercise. They also had the largest number of written submission that any committee has ever received.

In addition, I do have with me a list of research provided to me by the department which is relevant to this discussion of what research was used by the Child Support Agency and the department in the bringing forward of further responses to the Price committee's recommendations. I seek leave to have that list of research references included in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The list read as follows—

It would be useful to just very quickly address another issue that Senator Evans addressed when he started speaking. This is an update report on the status of the recommendations which has been provided to me by my department. The joint select committee report—known as the Price report—was tabled in December 1994. The former government tabled an interim response in March 1995 which addressed 53 of the 163 recommendations. These are mainly concerned with the Child Support Agency administration of the scheme, which is what I said last night. A summary of the outcomes of those 53 responses is: 46 agreed or partly agreed, two disagreed, five disagreed but an alternative solution provided.

The coalition government came into power in 1996 and in November 1997 tabled its response and introduced legislative amendments that commenced in 1999 and earlier this year. At least two batches, in my recollection, of legislative changes came through the Senate. They were the more difficult issues to contemplate, but one would have expected that they would have had an easy passage through the Senate because it had been a bipartisan report that Mr Price chaired. The current bill now addresses further measures. A summary of the outcomes of the recommendations addressed by this government is: agreed or partly agreed, 68; disagreed, 35; and disagreed but alternative solutions provided, 110. That is the state of play, which I have given to the Senate. It comes from advice I have received from the department.

In addressing the issue of the contact measure, which was the first main measure Senator Evans raised, I remind the Senate that the joint select committee noted that it was unclear how the formula accounted for the cost of contact of less than 30 per cent and expressed concern that that current threshold may be creating a cliff effect. This was something I said to the Senate last night. The joint select committee suggested that this effect could be ameliorated by progressively increasing the allowance for contact over a greater range, and that is what this contact measure will achieve.

This does not change the approach taken in the way child support is calculated. Under the current child support formula, liability is calculated based on the amount of contact a nonresident has with their children, but that formula recognises the cost of contact only where nonresident parents exercise contact for between 30 and 40 per cent of the nights of the year. This measure will provide a specific and transparent allowance for the costs of contact where parents care for their children between 10 and 30 per cent of the time. The measure will also distinguish between the liabilities of parents exercising little or no contact and those exercising regular and ongoing contact.

I will briefly mention the issue of child poverty, because Senator Evans just referred to that again. The NATSEM research he drew attention to shows that where child support is paid children are less likely to be in poverty. I endorsed the introduction of the scheme, having alway believed that both parents should support their children—our side of politics supported the Labor government when they introduced the measures. That scheme has directly contributed to reducing child poverty, and everybody must be the happier for that. We believe that the package before us now will improve the Child Support Scheme in a balanced way, resulting in a fairer scheme.

Research shows that where parents perceive their child support liabilities as being fair they are much more likely to meet their obligations. As a result of this package more parents will be more willing to meet their child support obligations, resulting in even further reductions in child poverty. Of course, most importantly of all, more children will have more time with both their parents, and I think everybody here would believe that that is the desirable outcome. I also have in front of me another piece of research that Senator Evans might be interested to follow up, because he clearly was not aware that it was available. Released in 1999, also by NATSEM, it is policy research paper No. 3 on estimates of the costs of children in Australian families in 1993-94. I draw that to the Senate's attention as well.

Senator Chris Evans —I referred to it in my speech in the second reading debate.

Senator NEWMAN —No, you referred to another one.