Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I would also like to make a contribution to the debate on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2015. I thank the member for Aston for his warm-up act and for acknowledging that I would be following him. I hope he is going to wait around for my contribution, because I listened intently to what he had to say and I have to say: it was very similar to what I have heard from many, many members on their side.

One thing that I am still grappling to come to terms with is that the lecture we are getting on fiscal rectitude is coming from the same people who advocated—back in the 2014 budget, where this had its genesis—as to why it was essential that we had a rolled-gold Paid Parental Leave scheme to accommodate Macquarie Street solicitors. As to all the arguments being made at that stage, we asked: why would you have a Paid Parental Leave scheme geared to people earning $150,000 a year? 'Because we can,' was the answer.

It was in that 2014 budget that they advocated all that. They went on to try to take it out of pensioners and people on family tax benefit A and family tax benefit B. I think what that showed was that it was not a structural realignment; it was a structural divide, for many of us, as to the communities that we represent.

The National Party should maybe have had a closer look at this because many of their electorates actually resemble mine. My electorate, apart from being the most multicultural electorate in the country, is the second most disadvantaged. In my electorate, the average income per household is $53,000. I would imagine that maybe many of those sitting around in Cockies Corner over here would probably have similar statistics reflected in their areas.

What this bill does is to attack those who are least able to afford it. I know there is lots of discussion going on in the media—though everyone is denying it when it is in the House—about raising by 50 per cent the goods and services tax. They are for it; they are against it—who knows where they will be on it tomorrow. We have that endless argument here about: 'We're going to do something to make sure the multinationals pay tax.' I have not read that in Rupert Murdoch's magazines either. But when it comes down to attacking those most vulnerable in our communities, they just cannot wait to get into their pockets. They cannot wait.

For all the colour and the vibrancy that we enjoy in my electorate, such as the culinary delights of having a high Asian population, I know what it is like for these families. They do it tough. Mums and dads there work pretty hard to raise a family and to get their kids a proper education. Certainly they aspire much for their children, which is a good thing. But they have to work hard to do that. And if the average family income in my electorate is $53,000, then clearly there are going to be many, many people who struggle.

One other statistic is worthwhile looking at before we get into the actual basics of this legislation. My electorate, as I say, has large pockets of disadvantage, but, when it comes to families living with disabilities—and let us just take one of them: autism—within a radius of 20 kilometres of the Liverpool CBD live 52 per cent of all families in New South Wales living with autism. I assure you that it is not the water or the air out there; it is probably the fact that land prices are a little cheaper than they are elsewhere in Sydney, and we have a lot of public housing. Regrettably, 80 per cent of families that live with autism are single-parent families. The very families that are being attacked by these cuts to family tax benefits A and B, and the ones who are most vulnerable, are the ones, quite frankly, who are doing it very, very tough. They are not after handouts; they are after support. I would have thought that is generally why we become members of this place: not to necessarily be a champion to get a vote for another election; we are supposed to be here to try to make a difference for the better for our communities. That must be the motivation, otherwise it is a lie to seek preselection, seek to be elected and everything else to come to this great place.

I accept there are going to be issues of fiscal responsibility and we will discuss plenty of that, and I am happy to discuss that, but, when it comes to issues of fairness and decency, when it comes to caring about people who are the most vulnerable, I think that buck really stops with all of us. I again make the comparison of the spirit that was around in 2014 to have paid parental leave for a Macquarie Street solicitor on $150,000 a year because it was the right thing to do, according to the government—'No means test; we will have it there'—and in the same budget trying to bring down cuts to family tax benefit part A and part B, trying to peg pension entitlements and also trying to peg the pension for disability support. This is just the wrong way of going about our responsibilities to the community. I do not care how many times they want to try to give us lectures on fiscal responsibility. Remember, these are real people that we are talking about.

In many instances the people we are talking about do not have the option of working another shift and do not have the option of working overtime. The people we are talking about are dependent on these payments. These cuts should not be designed with people saying, 'We're going to cut this, so therefore they'll go and get jobs.' Where they can, those people are already in employment. Under the legislation before us, the single mum with two kids—and she may be on disability support or does not get the schoolkids bonus—could be up to $5,000 per year worse off. I do not think it behoves any of those on the other side to take credit for that—unless they want to; then well and good. I do not think it shows any maturity for people in this place who occupy seats of privilege to bring down legislation that does exactly that.

There is the issue of family tax benefit B for single-parent families with kids between the ages of 13 and 16. The aim is to see that abolished under this legislation. It will happen in a staged form, but it is being abolished. Family tax benefit B, the supplement that is currently worth $354 a year, will be cut to $303 in 2016, $153 in 2017 and wiped out in 2018. I am sure that is something people should be very proud of on that side when they think about the people we are talking about! Combined with cutting the family tax benefit A supplement, I understand from the memorandum accompanying the bill that there is going to be a budget save worth $4.06 billion—a budget save on the back of those most vulnerable in our community. Well done, fellows, well done! The truth is that 1.3 million families will lose their family tax benefit B supplement of $354 per family—1.3 million families. With respect to family tax benefit A, the supplement will be reduced from $602 from July this year to half of that in 2017 and abolished in 2018.

I heard members opposite trying to crow about the fact that there will be an added $10 every fortnight for each child up to the age of 19. That is hardly going to offset what these families are already going through. There is no way that those opposite can say that this is kindred to that. This is just a slap in the face for people who are the most vulnerable in our community. The fact is that 1.5 million families will lose the family tax benefit A supplement, which is $726 per child. You need to realise that we are talking about 650,000 families who are on single-parent benefits and around 500,000 of those families are on the maximum rate. That means that their combined household income is less than $51,000 a year. Members sitting around navel gazing and making grand decisions about what is good for people on benefits might think about parliamentarians. I understand how hard parliamentarians work and what is required of us, but think about raising a family on $51,000 a year. Do not lecture them on fiscal responsibility and say, 'We need to examine those cuts for the future.' Think about how that is going to mature this country and make it something that we are not. The country we grew up in was a country that valued fairness and decency. It valued caring for people who are the most vulnerable.

Those opposite have really taken leave of their senses if they think that they can try to hoodwink our community by saying this is good for them. This is not good for the mums and dads in my community. It is not good for the average household that is on a household income of $53,000. It is certainly not good for the single parents out there trying to raise a family.

Debate interrupted.

See this speech in context