Tammy Tyrrell (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, Senator Gallagher. Last Wednesday, I raised the question on the unfair classification of twin births as a single birth rather than a multiple birth. The multiple birth allowance was introduced in 1985, to quote a former minister, 'in recognition of the extra cost faced by parents following simultaneous birth as well as the indirect costs of reduced workforce participation'. Minister Farrell last week agreed that 'multiple' means two or more. You agree that parents of twins face extra costs. You accept that they have reduced workforce participation. What is the logic that justifies additional support for parents of triplets but does not also justify additional support for parents of twins?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Tyrrell for the question. As Senator Farrell said last week, the government recognises that families, including the families of twins, do face unique challenges when having multiple births and that those births, while time for much celebration, often involve increased costs of raising children and place pressure on parents around re-entering the workforce. I've had the opportunity here to meet with the Multiple Birth Association when they come to town. There are a range of payments and assistance available to the parents of twins.

In relation to the specifics of why there's a certain interaction between twins as opposed to triplets, I would have to take that on notice and see if I can come back. I imagine that, when it was designed, there would have been reasons around that, but I don't have that information in front of me. But I can say that parents of twins can of course access family tax benefit payments, both A and B; newborn supplement; and newborn upfront payment. Parents of twins will also receive the benefit of the expansion of PPL, and parents can also access both PPL and the family tax benefit supplements like the newborn supplement and the newborn upfront payment at the same time. This provides an additional $2,735.05 for parents of twins. This is not available to parents of one child and is specifically designed to provide additional support to families of twins.

The multiple birth allowance payment recognises that families with three or more children born at the same time face disproportionately higher costs across their children's lives, as well as it making it harder to work. But if there is more information I can provide around the history of that, I will. (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Tyrrell, first supplementary?

Tammy Tyrrell (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I received correspondence from the former minister, who stated, 'Extending the multiple birth allowance would represent a significant increase in family assistance expenditure and would need to be balanced against other priorities to align with the government's responsible management of the budget.' Minister, am I correct in understanding that the government's current position is that 98 per cent of multiple births should be ineligible for multiple birth allowance because it would be expensive to support them?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In my earlier answer I went through the payments that are available to the parents of twins—which is extra, in the order of $2,735.05—that are not available to parents of one child. I think there is definitely a recognition there of the additional financial support from the government, so I don't accept the proposition put forward by Senator Tyrrell.

As to the multiple birth allowance payment, the origins of that are that it's to accommodate births of three or more children born at the same time. I think the parents of twins accessing some of those other payments at the same time—that they can receive them for both babies—is recognition that there are extra costs and that those costs are, in part way, supported by the government through those additional payments.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Tyrrell, second supplementary?

Tammy Tyrrell (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The then minister accepted that the costs associated with twins are five times higher than that of a single child. Minister, if you accept this fact and you accept that not supporting them financially saves the government money, isn't it also true that the money you're saving comes from pushing the cost onto families who can't afford it?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I don't accept that. We in the government, in each budget, look at what we can do to make sure that we are supporting families with cost-of-living relief. That's been right at the centre of a lot of the decisions that the Albanese government has taken, whether it be around childcare, whether it be about all of the health investments, whether it be through the tax cuts or whether it be us arguing for higher wages so that people can earn more and keep more of what they earn, but also in those other areas like investments in TAFE, and all of those areas, too, are about supporting families with cost-of-living pressures.

I've gone through the support that can be provided to twins. We always examine this at every budget, as to what further assistance can be provided, and I have no doubt that Minister Kearney and others will be considering the representations from the Multiple Birth Association and the parents of twins.