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

I rise to support the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further Election Commitments and Other Measures) Bill 2011. This bill has five key aspects. The first three aspects—Better Access to Family Payments, Healthy Start for School and Strengthening Compliance—Child Support—emanate from our election commitments. The remaining two aspects—streamlining the notification processes for compensation recipients and some minor amendments to technical or drafting matters within the act—emanate from the 2010-11 budget.

We on this side of the chamber believe that the purpose of government is to help families. Despite what has just been said, any objective analysis of what is being put forward would show that this bill does exactly that. I pride myself on being able to say that my electorate of Fowler is all about families. It is the most multicultural electorate in the country. It has a disproportionately high number of families, and I know that the measures contained in this legislation will be of benefit to them. My electorate—no doubt like yours, Mr Deputy Speaker Sidebottom—is very much centred around family and family life, and I know that the initiatives proposed in this bill will make a difference in balancing the family budget.

The first aspect of the bill is Better Access to Family Payments, which is something we committed to in the lead-up to the last election. It will provide more flexibility for advance payments to families on the family tax benefit. Families will be able to receive a larger and more flexible advance of their family tax benefit entitlements. This will help families meet those unexpected expenses, which I know will be welcomed by residents of my electorate.

My kids are now grown up, but as a father I get to see the unexpected expenses my kids are facing with my grandchildren going to school—school outings, uniforms and things like that. I get to see those things that impact on my daughter's and my son's expenses and what they have to do to have their kids ready for school or other activities. I understand how in reality, when this change is applied across the electorate, it is going to increase flexibility for mums and dads out there so they can make ends meet and, importantly, ensure that their kids do not miss out. As I understand it, the amount that will be advanced will be linked to the amount a family receives in benefits, with Centrelink on hand to give parents assistance, particularly with financial counselling or other support. That too is a big thing.

The upshot of this scheme is that families will be able to avoid high credit card costs. They will be able to avoid the costs of taking up personal loans and will be better placed to plan their budgets accordingly by being able to access the money when they need it and adjust their budgets to facilitate their expenditure over periods of less demand on income support. This may not seem much to those opposite, who seem to be very dismissive of it, but for those of us who have a high housing commission component in our electorates—a high proportion of single-parent families—that provision alone will make a very significant difference. I can assure you of that. The second component of this amendment is the Healthy Start for School package. It is another election commitment and affects family tax benefit recipients on income support payments. It links the family payments to the health checks of four-year-olds. If parents refuse to comply with the requirements, they will have their payments suspended. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will recall in the lead-up to the last election we emphasised significantly the importance of having every child being school-ready, every child being examined to make sure they were healthy—and four years old is the appropriate time, before they get to school.

Only last week I conducted an exercise with the Autism Advisory and Support Service. One of the big things they advised me of was that, whilst all these moneys are available for early intervention, unless a parent suspects that their child is slow or is possibly falling into the autism spectrum disorder band, ordinarily it is not brought to light until they get to school and a teacher decides to ask a parent in that respect. It is imperative, particularly for those disorders, that we have early intervention. That is where the difference can be made, in all sorts of areas—including my own grandson, who is on the spectrum. He was, very fortunately, diagnosed early, and I see the difference that that makes. There is probably more chance than not in him being diagnosed. But what this bill is seeking to do is to make sure all kids get a healthy start—and, as I say, we do need to ensure that our kids are ready to attend school, ready to learn and that, where there are issues, we are in a position to do something about them through early intervention. That is clearly an aspect of families embracing healthy lifestyles and providing appropriate assistance to parents. It is something that I am very fortunate with—as I said, I have a very active service in my electorate, the Autism Advisory and Support Service, run by its volunteer director, Grace Fava. They do an extraordinary job of assisting parents whose children are suspected as having, or have been diagnosed with, autism. This is one of the things that they keep emphasising to me: we need to take every possible step that all kids are given the proper checks and, where necessary, are able to access, in terms of autism, the $12,000 before they turn six to actually help them. Regrettably, a lot of kids—sometimes through denial with respect to their parents—do not go through that process, and as a consequence kids stand to miss out. This is something that was very much a key election commitment from us, and it is something we are proud to be delivering at this stage.

With respect to low-income families or where, unfortunately, marriage breakdowns and separations occur, in my electorate I do have very high levels of separation rates. I know that there is enormous stress on single-parent families. Again, this is something that will help in that respect, at least to ensure their kids have been tested and given every opportunity for a healthy start in their learning careers and throughout their education process.

The third part of this bill is again an election commitment, and it deals with strengthening the compliance in the child support system. At the moment, in the event of a parent who fails to lodge their income, or is late with their income tax return, a default income is used, which is currently two-thirds of the male total average weekly earnings. So, where one parent decides—maybe because their income has accelerated over a particular period of time, such as by being inflated by overtime or other things—to simply not put a return in, the male total average weekly earnings is the default income that is used for calculating child support. Obviously, that has certain advantages, but there is certainly an incentive for those who want to dodge their commitments to their children, as the default figure can understate the parent's actual income. The Gillard government has committed to making this system more fair and more accurate. That is not just about going out and trying to take money from people; it is trying to do that which is right and fair for the child. I know sometimes it is a bit hard to get through, particularly when parents are still in a combative position, but the basis of this particular amendment is to do what is fair for the child. We want parents to meet their obligations and support their children. This fairer system will replace the current system. The process will generally use the parent's last known taxable income, indexed by growth in average wages. In the event that the MTAWE process provides a higher income, that will be used instead, but in the main it will be the last known taxable income, indexed by average wages. I strongly support that measure, because I believe that in all these circumstances the person who cannot miss out is the child. It is clear that, in this respect, we must do the right thing and front and centre in our consideration must be the child.

The fourth aspect to the amendment deals with the streamlining of the notification processes for compensation recipients. This was a 2010-11 budget measure and will streamline the process of notifying Centrelink when payments are made by compensation payers, such as insurers. The compensation payers will now be required to tell Centrelink before compensation payments, either as a lump sum or as a periodic payment, are made to the recipients or their partners. This new requirement will ensure that people are paid the correct amount straight away. At the moment, there are times when Centrelink is not informed, which means that overpayments are made and those debts then have to be recovered. The recovery process creates difficulties for families in having the money taken back from them. But this is meant to ensure that people receive what they are justly required to receive under law and to ensure that the payment is correct when it is first paid. That way we avoid the issue of having to go out to recover overpayments.

I can speak about what that may mean for Centrelink. I can understand that it is a good thing for them, administratively. But it does seem to me that it is a very harsh thing to do for someone from Centrelink to come six or seven months later to recover a debt when, by that time, the money has already been absorbed into the family's normal daily running costs and looking after the family. We see that and we understand it, so what we are trying to do is ensure that the money people receive is appropriately adjusted so that the debt is not incurred in the first instance. The vast majority of people will want to do the right thing, and it will make the process for them easier. To that extent, it will actually reward people who are doing the right thing.

In my electorate a lot of people will benefit from what is proposed in this bill. I have a large grouping of families and I know that my electorate is over-represented with people with disabilities. The fact that we are now going to examine every four-year-old will be of extraordinary benefit to my community. (Time expired)

See this speech in context