Parliamentary Inquiry into the Child Support Program:A critical analysis of submissions

Abstract

Despite the Australian Child Support Scheme having been in operation for three decades and seen as one of the leading child support systems in the world, child support continues to be one of the most disputed and controversial areas of social policy. Five major evaluations of the Scheme have occurred over the past 25 years, including the most recent Parliamentary Inquiry in 2014 chaired by the Hon George Christensen MP. The present study sought to critically examine the submissions to, and final report of, the 2014 Parliamentary Inquiry into the Child Support Program - in particular whether some voices (that is, those of experts versus those of non-experts) and forms of evidence were given primacy. Three research questions guided the study: (a) Did the Committee focus on any particular terms of reference? (b) Were some forms of evidence privileged over other sources of evidence? and (c) To what extent was the Committee's final report based on "expert" evidence? These questions were examined by conducting a thematic analysis of 130 written submissions and oral evidence from 79 witnesses at 12 public hearings around Australia (available on the Parliamentary website). Three key findings emerged. First, while the formula and compliance featured in the Committee's questions during oral submissions, it was far less prominent in the final report. In short, the Committee did not focus on any particular terms of reference in its final report. One possible reason for this is that most - if not all - of the Terms of Reference in totality require a major investigation by a group of technical experts supported by a large specialist secretariat (as was the case with the Ministerial Taskforce). A broad and shallow approach to all of the Terms of Reference is safe in the current risk-averse, fiscally tight, intense political context. A second finding was that some forms of evidence (most notably expert evidence) were privileged over other types of evidence (that is, non-expert evidence). A third finding was that the Committee's final report was largely based on "expert" evidence; this differs from prior evaluations in which gender-based non-expert interest groups have been found to be influential in the policy reform process. The findings from the present study suggest that the most recent child support inquiry involved highly selective, ad hoc and opaque processes rather than logical, rational, transparent processes. Lessons for the policy development process, and ideas for future studies, are noted.