Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor will not be opposing the two measures in this bill today, which is another part of an ongoing range of issues around family payments and government savings. This is one that Labor will be supporting, though it is not an easy decision. We listened to the evidence from a range of organisations and people who wrote into the very short Senate Community Affairs Committee inquiry, where we raised questions about the impact of the changes, particularly on families with lower incomes and about the way the government seems to be targeting family payments as it seeks to make savings. We have considered every element of savings proposals brought forward by the government. We have looked at them individually and also looked at their impact. As this Senate knows, there have been so many proposals on this rather complex area of family payments, which is quite confusing not only to people in the community but also to many of the senators.

The two proposals we have before us in this bill relate to family payments: the portability of the payment and abolition of the large family supplement. Turning to portability first, it refers to families who will be overseas for a period of time. The current system allows for a 56-week period of portability; from the evidence that our committee received, I can say that people considered 56 weeks as particularly generous, although they did not understand why that particular period was initially chosen. The government has brought forward a proposal for that period to be reduced to six weeks, which the committee found that to be a questionable period. The government has indicated that it brings it into line with other payments and signals that family payments are designed to support families in Australia. The Labor Party accepts that rationale, but we are very keen for the minister to have the discretion to consider requests for extensions. We would be uncomfortable if that particular element had not been included in the legislation. The portability of family payments will be for six weeks, but it will still be possible to put up special cases for a range of issues, including that families are caught out overseas with illness. On that basis, we are prepared to accept that part of the government's proposal.

The second proposal concerns the abolition of large family payments, which gave added payment for the fourth child and subsequent children in large families. Concerns were raised in the committee inquiry about the where the major impact of this particular saving would fall. Labor listened carefully to that evidence, and we still believe that, if you are actually taking the difficult decisions around where payments are best targeted, this was an area where we were prepared to support the government.

As we have said before, it is not easy to make these decisions, particularly in an environment where the government consistently attacks the Labor Party for blocking any changes that they bring forward. It is important that we reinforce the notion that we do not automatically block savings proposals that brought before us in this place and that every element is considered carefully on its own merits. We will be asked next week to support another range of government savings measures in the family space, and Labor will be opposing those, because we genuinely believe that the case has not been made that they are effective or reasonable cuts to family payments.

It is also important to note that one of the other issues that has come up in our consideration of the range of proposals put forward by the government is that it seems impossible to have information prepared by the department or the government which looks at the overall impact of the range of changes being put forward. It is very difficult to consider any of the savings packages in isolation, because we need to have some concept of the composite impact of the changes. That is an argument that we will raise consistently in this area. We believe it is critically important that we look at the issues of fairness when considering any payment.

Another important principle is to put people and families first. We need to look at the way families can continue to budget and the way families which are totally reliant on the welfare system can be supported. We heard gut-wrenching evidence in our inquiry last week on the bill the government will introduce next week on another range of cuts. The absolute survival and livelihood of some families depend on the range of income support they receive. Any decision on changes to a payment needs to take into account the pressures imposed on families in certain circumstances. At this point I would like to acknowledge the evidence we received from Children with Disabilities Australia, who consistently raised with us, and I am sure with parliamentarians across the country, the particular concerns of families raising children with disabilities—the added costs, the added pressures and the added demands placed on those families, which often mean deep stresses for those families that are rarely considered when looking at the general area of family payments. People who are raising children with disabilities are recipients of the standard family payments, and every dollar is important when it comes to the expensive special needs these children have. We do ask, as we always do, whether we could as a Senate at some stage get some information from the department about the composite impact of the range of changes being brought forward to families, in particular, as many of the savings elements the government has put forward relate to family payments—family tax benefit A, family tax payment B—and also the range of other welfare payments involved. Also, there is the element of people living in remote areas and the extra support that may be required in the area, as well as the ongoing stresses for single parent families. Again, evidence was brought forward to our committee about the effect of particular elements of family tax benefit changes—particular pressures they can have on single parent families, with the budget process also, with the range of changes that have been made with moving from family payment areas into Newstart and the loss of payment in that way.

They are general comments about the overall area of family payments. We can support the two measures that have come before us in this bill. As always, we say there needs to be ongoing monitoring of the impact on families and continuing modelling about exactly how all the payments work together. On that basis Labor will be supporting the two proposals before us in this bill, but we put on notice that we will continue to scrutinise every element of saving that is brought to us. Certainly, as the government well knows, we are not supporting the bulk of changes that are in the other family payments areas that will come up in future bills. We will continue to oppose those because we do not think they meet the fairness test.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to 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.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank my colleagues for their contribution to this debate. As my colleagues have covered, the bill does introduce two family related measures from the 2015 budget, which will simplify the family payment system and achieve combined savings of $219.4 million over the forward estimates subject to the final commencement arrangements. Firstly, from 1 January 2016, families will be eligible for family tax benefit and additional payments that rely upon family tax benefit eligibility for a period of up to six weeks when outside Australia. Currently, family tax benefit part A recipients who are overseas are able to receive their usual rate of payment for six weeks and then the base rate for a further 50 weeks. This change is expected to achieve savings of $42.1 million over the forward estimates. With that, I will continue later.

Debate interrupted.