Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Hansard source

This is the thing, isn't it? You have proposed to oppose or reverse $48.5 billion worth of savings. You have promised $10.6 billion worth of expenditure. That leaves you with a $59.1 billion problem. You have proposed two revenue measures, which would be $3.8 billion and $1.3 billion at absolute best estimates, which leaves you with a $54 billion problem. That is not a problem that you solve without taking a rational look at different types of expenditure.

Unpacking what we have proposed, you are now suggesting that it is fair, rational and appropriate, in the context of the very difficult budgetary circumstances we face, to have a cessation of family tax benefit part B for coupled families but not for single parent families or any other type of families. We agree that, in context, this has to be done—and we will take whatever savings that you agree to, within reason. But, if you are a coupled family who makes a contribution to child care, which will benefit a whole range of families, and also to return the nation to surplus, which is very important for the children of any single family that exists in Australia, you might ask why it is that you should bear a very special burden over a family that is structured in a slightly different way. The reality is that we will have a range of debates about fairness. But, as I noted in question time, the only way to absolutely guarantee that everyone who may be affected in any way by savings measure that they think are unfair is simply not to have a savings measure or to have one and not tell anyone about it.

What those opposite have perpetually noted is that there must be savings within family tax benefits. When those opposite were in government, they knew about the budgetary situation that we were in because they chose to move 77,000 single mothers, who were previously grandfathered out, off a parenting payment. They lost more than $150 per fortnight and were suddenly, without warning, without any mitigating spending on training or education and without giving them any time to adjust, forced onto Newstart. You obviously thought that, in the circumstances, that was a very difficult decision. But it had to sit within the context that it is not in anyone's interest that the children of today that graduate into the tax system should end up with debt. (Time expired)

See this speech in context