Posts

The Aussie Parental Nightmare

,

It’s wrong that Australian parents are forced to pay child support to a parent holding their child in Japan contrary to Australian court orders.

During this session, the department couldn’t tell me how many Aussie parents are trapped in this nightmare, nor how they ensure these funds actually benefit the children.

While I welcome news of updates to Japanese domestic law, we must stop enabling parental abduction.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here again today. My questions should be fairly brief, I think. For those not familiar with this scenario, many Australian children have been taken by one parent to Japan, with that parent refusing to return the Australian child to Australia, contrary to both the wishes of the other custodial parent and an Australian court order. In Japan, the non-Japanese parent is often denied access to their child or to even have contact with that child. Sometimes contact is limited to a small number of written letters or emails per year. This is because of Japanese domestic law. Senator Chisholm, I’ve just heard good news from Senator Wong that Japanese domestic law has been changed. So this may be eased somewhat. This organised child stealing is still happening, to some extent with the financial support of our welfare system here in Australia. Why should an Australian parent be forced to pay child support to a Japanese parent where the child is being held in Japan contrary to the wishes of the Australian parent and other family members and contrary to court orders? Why should that happen?  

Mr Flavel: On child support, there are a number of different agreements that exist between countries in relation to child support, and I don’t really want to get into providing a commentary on their adequacy or the way that they apply in individual cases.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice?  

Mr Flavel: I am very happy to take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. How does Social Services know that the money being paid to the parent in Japan is used for the benefit of the child?  

Mr Flavel: That, of course, goes to any payment made, if what you’re referring to is child support payments, because you mentioned welfare. Child support isn’t welfare. Child support is a payment from one parent to another. There aren’t requirements for the receiving parent to acquit the payments. Obviously, there would be an expectation, though, that they are being applied for the wellbeing of the children.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does this system of paying child support to an overseas parent encourage the child stealing parent to basically hold the child at ransom by taking the child to Japan?  

Mr Flavel: I think that’s veering dangerously into giving an opinion, so I’m not going to do that.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many Australian based parents are being forced to pay child support to a parent holding a child in Japan?  

Mr Flavel: If you are after numbers of international child support arrangements, we can take that on notice and provide that to you, and, if it’s specifically in relation to Japan, we can come back on that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Is the situation as it is really in the best interests of the child?  

ACTING CHAIR: Again, Senator Roberts, I think you’re going to an opinion. Could you frame your question in the sense of a fact that the officials can respond to.  

Mr Lye: The child support scheme is about making sure that children in separated families are not left in poverty and receive the benefits of the resources of both parents where possible. It’s to address high rates of child poverty. I know the issue that you’re pursuing is a particular one in relation to that, but the reason why the scheme itself is there is to protect the interests of children. There has been a lot of conflict in the scheme over the years because separated parents, almost by definition, don’t agree on things, but very few people would contend that a child shouldn’t benefit from the economic resources of their parents, even where they’re separated.  

Senator ROBERTS: I agree with you on that score, Mr Lye, but I’m wondering how we can make sure it’s being effective.  

Mr Lye: We can come back to you on the questions you’ve asked.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/1 Comment/by

Scrap Net Zero, Stop Waste, Restore Australia

,

Australia watched the Treasurer turn the cabinet room into a stage for business and union bosses instead of using it for real cabinet deliberation. The roundtable wasn’t about shaping policy—it was about rubberstamping what the government had already decided. Their attempt to link productivity to higher taxes collapsed, and Australians are left wondering why this government keeps chasing revenue instead of fixing its spending problem.

One Nation will fight the Albanese government’s tax hikes and end the wasteful net zero transition that’s draining billions a year while driving private enterprise away. We will restore fiscal sanity by cutting unnecessary spending, imposing an eight-year residency requirement for Social Security, and cracking down on fraud in agencies such as Centrelink, Medicare, the NDIS, and the PBS.

Smaller government and a sensible energy policy will deliver real productivity gains and prosperity for Australians—especially our young.

Transcript

Last week, Australia watched the Treasurer host business and union bosses in the cabinet room. The irony escaped the Treasurer—using the cabinet room to hold a policy debate cabinet itself should be doing. The usual suspects were not there to help form government policy; they were there to rubberstamp the policies the government intends to implement in this parliament. The roundtable even failed to achieve that. We know this because the ABC leaked the outcome of the week before. That communique remains in Treasurer Chalmers’s drawer, abandoned and unloved. The core intent—making productivity about taxation—failed.  

One Nation will oppose the tax hike the Albanese government will still try to introduce to cover its growing financial black hole caused largely through the increasing use of taxpayer money to pay for a net zero transition from which private enterprise is walking away—indeed, running away. This government doesn’t need more revenue; it needs to spend less money. One Nation will abolish the net zero transition, saving the government $30 billion each year in direct expenditure and generating that much again in extra revenue from a revitalised economy. One Nation will impose an eight-year residency requirement on access to social security, taking tens of billions of dollars off the cost of Centrelink, Medicare, the NDIS and the PBS and giving auditors and police a chance to investigate and prosecute the rampant fraud. Net zero insanity, deficit spending and throwing cash at new arrivals are robbing our children of their future.  

Smaller government and a sensible energy policy are where productivity improvements will actually come from. One Nation’s policies will restore wealth and prosperity for all who are here, especially our young. The Albanese government will just take your money and leave working Australians with less—much less. A One Nation government, though, will restore Australia. 

/by

Services Australia burning $90.7 million for flash riverfront city office

,

Services Australia is pressing ahead with plans to move to convert 5 suburban offices into one riverfront high-rise office. The fit-out alone will cost taxpayers $89 million. After that, the leasing costs for the high-rise office will be $1.7 million a year more expensive than Service Australia spent on leases for the entire financial year.

How on earth can an extra $91 million cost be justified as ‘value for money’ for taxpayers? I certainly don’t feel like it’s money well spent.

Transcript

[Chair] Senator Roberts. So we’ll give Senator Roberts a call.

[Malcolm] Thank you Chair and thank you for being here tonight. Might, also have some questions about Services Australia’s service centres. Services Australia is spending $89 million purely on a fit-out for their expensive new riverfront high rise office in Brisbane. Minister, when Australia has such a huge debt, due to the COVID restrictions, what is the cost benefit that a Services Australia would achieve from year one? And why not postpone it?

[Chair] Senator, you may be surprised to learn that I haven’t done a personal cost benefit analysis on the particular project. But I’m more-

[Malcolm] Wouldn’t most projects have a cost benefit?

[Chair] I’m just saying I haven’t-

[Malcolm] No, no, I mean-

[Chair] Yes, of course. So what I was gonna say is that I would, perhaps, if with your indulgence, ask the agency to please provide the cost or the justification for that particular project.

[Services Australia] Senator, we support a work force that’s over 30,000 people. We require both office space and as I’ve outlined, have a range of service centres and residential properties. We have 392 commercial properties. We are where we can looking at ways to reduce the overall costs of the office footprint. And so you will see us in places like Brisbane, amalgamating some of the office space. They all go through a proper procurement process, which in the whole and the whole cost benefit analysis is looked at. It is important to that we maintain office space that meets contemporary work, health and safety standards. And is able to manage a modern and contemporary technology. So all of those aspects go into ensuring that office space remains fit for purpose. And I can assure you that we look very carefully at making sure we manage our property footprint and service centres within the agency’s envelope for property.

[Malcolm] Thank you. Looking at some of the, I think five service centres, from the suburbs in Brisbane are being amalgamated into one, downtown?

[Services Australia] No not service centres. We need to be very clear about that. The service centres are separate. We are looking to amalgamate a smattering of different back office leases into a better fit for purpose centre.

[Malcolm] So these are not service outlets?

[Services Australia] No senator.

[Malcolm] Okay. They’re not customer-

[Services Australia] They’re not shop fronts if you like. So we, as I said, we’ve got a very large workforce. Most of our telephony and things are done in big smart centres, we have large technical workforce lawyers, all sorts of people. We all work in offices and we have 318 shop fronts and then access and agents points. We also do have some residential properties to support our remote and regional servicing.

[Malcolm] From the figures I’ve got, the annual, the current annual leasing bill for Services Australia in Brisbane, this financial year, is 32.35 million or 1.73 million cheaper than the proposed new building. That’s per annum. Are there any risks to productivity? Because of-

[Services Australia] There’s no, no Senator, there’s no risks to productivity.

[Malcolm] So you’re gonna pay more to go downtown? 1.73 million more?

[Services Australia] I will take on notice… Lease costs are renegotiated at various points in the leases of other buildings anyway. So extrapolating how other lease costs may have gone up around a single lease. Let me take on notice particular details around the five sites versus the cost of the one.

[Malcolm] Okay, thank you. How many public servants in your department are now working from home?

[Services Australia] For various reasons we have around 10,000 people working from home. So Services Australia has a mixed workforce. So some 28, 29,000 Australian public servants, but there are also service delivery partners that support us. And some, and contractors, particularly in our ICT space. So a number of those people were also working from home and some of our service delivery partners have been able to work from home. But broadly about 10,000 people are working from home as part of the Services Australia at the moment.

[Malcolm] Is there any reluctance from people coming back to the office?

[Services Australia] We’ve not experienced that we’ve had. We are nationally distributed. So our workforce, we manage our workforce against each of the state and territory requirements. For example, we had many more people working from home in Victoria for large parts of last year In Canberra, most people were still coming into the office if they to work; we’ve seen different arrangements through Omicron. You know, our work is our people both work from home and come to the office and we haven’t had any real issues with people coming and going in that arrangement.

[Malcolm] Yeah, thank you. Last question. I understand Services Australia has the federal government’s second largest property portfolio after the Department of Defence and you lease around 720,000, almost 721,000 square metres of commercial property. What do you do to ensure that property costs are reduced and that services are located where they’re needed? I know, I’ve just learned that these are nothing to do with customer interface, but… What are you doing?

[Services Australia] So Senator, I think, as I’ve stated, we are, what you’ve outlined with things like, bringing together five leases in Brisbane, we’ve done something, we’re doing something similar. There’s a new building being built in Adelaide which brings and reduces three or four leases into one. So we are trying to drive an efficient and fit for purpose, office requirements. Every dollar that comes out of my budget into a property is money I can’t use for transformation or other things. So we are very focused on driving an appropriate fit for purpose workspace that delivers the outcomes for the best value, which is as we are required to do, under the PGPA; and consistent with the finance property guidelines.

[Malcolm] So in your response that you’re gonna give me on notice. You’ll be able to tell me why we’re going to go downtown and have $1.73 million more expensive than the current scattered five outlets in five centres in Brisbane.

[Services Australia] Well, I will take on notice that framing of your question and we will-

[Malcolm] And you’ll check the assumption?

[Services Australia] Yeah, we’ll check the assumptions that you’ve got there and own the decision and the context around, the full context of our decision to do that.

[Malcolm] Okay, thank you very much, thank you, Chair.

[Chair] Thank you, Senator.

/1 Comment/by