Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Measures) Bill 2015 is yet another round of cuts to family tax benefits. The bill continues this government's approach of looking at where they can make savings at the expense of some of the most vulnerable members of our community rather than looking at how they can make savings in areas that do not harm the most vulnerable. They also continue to refuse to look at effective revenue measures. We may now have a different Prime Minister than when the coalition government's attacks started on our most vulnerable in the 2014-15 budget, but many of the same measures, or versions of them, are still in place and we have the same sorts of attacks on Australian families. This bill contains measures that were introduced in the 2015-16 budget. We have a new Prime Minister, a new Treasurer and a new Minister for Social Services, but we have the same old approach—let's attack the social safety net of those people in our community who can least afford to be without that safety net. We know from NATSEM modelling, looking at the 2014-15 budget, that those the budget hurt the most were low-income families and single parents—those who could least afford it—while those on higher incomes suffered the least impact. We saw the same in the 2015-16 budget measures. The measures in this bill continue the attacks on the family tax benefit process. We are deeply concerned about the impact it will have on low-income families.

This bill reduces the portability of family tax benefit payments. Under the current system, family tax benefit A is paid at the full rate for six weeks when a family travels and a lower base rate is paid for another 50 weeks. The bill seeks to change that to a portability period of just six weeks. This matters not just for this payment; it has an impact on determining other payments as well. That adds to our concern about this measure. In making this change, the government is really cutting off a broader network of payments for families that travel overseas. This is a change that ignores the interconnected nature of Australian society. I would like to quote from the submission we received from the Welfare Rights Centre NSW:

This Bill ignores the cultural realities of a 21st century multicultural Australia, with many people having close and extensive ties to families living in countries outside of Australia. In the experience of the Welfare Rights Centre NSW, overseas travel can be required in family emergencies, in cases of illness, accident, natural disasters, and when care for relatives is required.

While some people need to travel to assist with caring duties, in some situations people travel overseas to be cared for, as there is no suitable carer in Australia, or for respite.

We concur with the comments of the Welfare Rights Centre. There are many reasons why families travel overseas and, while maybe the issue around exemptions could provide relief for some families, I believe that the 34,200 families who will be affected by this measure will not have access. They simply will not be granted those exemptions, so this measure will have a significant impact on those families that travel overseas. It is those families who travel overseas for those requirements that will be greatest hit by this measure and do not necessarily have a lot of money. They are travelling overseas because of, as I explained, a family emergency—perhaps illness or accident—and this measure could have a significant impact. A family with one child could lose $5,000 or $6,000. We do not support this change.

The bill also cuts the large family supplement. This is an annual payment for eligible FTB recipients for the fourth and every additional child. It currently provides $324.84 annually. The government has argued that additional children do not cost as much, and modelling by NATSEM shows that is correct. However, NATSEM also pointed out that there are significant costs associated with additional children. A better understanding of the extent of these costs to families is gained by again looking at the proportion of total income that these figures represent. While the dollar amount spent on second and third children is less than that spent on the first child, the additional proportion of income spent on each additional child is still significant for families at each income level, with the proportion of income spent on three children being about 2.5 times that spent on one child.

Obviously, families with more children are actually going to have more expenses. More importantly, the cuts to the Large Family Supplement occur in a context where the coalition is trying to cut away large chunks of our social security system, our family tax benefits process and, in fact, our whole social safety net. In that context, we cannot support additional measures that leave particularly low-income families worse off. We know that other budget measures have left low-income families worse off.

The ACTU noted that 125,000 families would lose the supplement. The ACTU, along with several other organisations, opposed the change. The National Welfare Rights Network said:

This is another measure seeking savings from the family payments system which will impact disproportionately on low income and vulnerable families. It comes on top of a series of measures which have steadily eroded the adequacy of family payments, including critically the indexation of Family Tax Benefit to prices not wages in 2009. Further changes that would reduce the level of support to low income families are currently before Parliament, including cessation of the end of year supplements.

I will speak a bit further about that shortly. The coalition is trying to argue that this is about sustainability. This is really part of the coalition's ideological obsession. It seems to us that it is about cutting support for low-income families. What else can justify the series of so many cuts this government has made to low-income families. I quote again from the National Welfare Rights Network's submission:

Both major parties have continued to foster a sense of crisis in relation to the cost of the family payments system which does not reflect the reality.

At the same time that there is talk of sustainability, the coalition is failing to take action on major issues on the revenue side, while constantly talking about savings that can be made. This is part of the coalition's consistent attack on the social safety net. This, in fact, has always been the plan. It was the plan under Tony Abbott, and now it is the plan under Malcolm Turnbull, our new Prime Minister. This reflects direct cuts on our social safety net, and a social safety net is fundamental to a fair society. The social safety net helps people who are having a rough go, struggling with illness and poverty, who are living in rental accommodation, who cannot find affordable accommodation, who are dealing with family break-ups and single parents who have had cut after cut. We are seeing more cuts to the next package the government will bring through. It is trying again to make significant cuts to the family payment system, which is already not supported by this chamber. I am hoping that the new cuts that come through will not be supported by this chamber, because they will have devastating impacts on those that can least afford it.

If we are going to reform the family tax benefit system, let us look at how to ensure that the most vulnerable in our community are not the ones that bear the brunt of the cuts. We cannot have a fair society if we do not have an adequate social safety net. We do not want to see bigger holes ripped into the social safety net and these measures are part of that. I am disappointed that the Labor Party is supporting the government on this. This is yet another part of the government's attack on the social safety net.

We will not be supporting the government's attempts to cut away more of our family payments system that helps and supports the most vulnerable members of our community. We oppose this bill. We want a strong social safety net in this country, not one that is full of holes which let people fall through them. If we are going to reform family tax benefits, we need a holistic approach that does not leave people behind. Clearly, the cuts that the governments wants and plans leave people behind. People will be worse off and those that suffer the most are those on the lowest income. We can do better than that in this country. We have to do better than that in this country if we are to address the issues of growing inequality, homelessness, people failing to find employment, because the jobs simply are not there and the poverty provides yet another barrier. We know from research that poverty is yet another barrier to employment.

While the government keep making grandiose claims about trying to help people into employment, they are actively undermining them by taking away, or cutting, these payments and by putting bigger holes in our social safety net and driving inequality. They undermine a person's ability to be prepared for and engage in employment. We know that the result of increasing poverty and living in poverty is yet another barrier to employment. We do not support these changes. We will not be supporting the next round the government intends to bring in as early as next week.