Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is good to have this opportunity to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Measures) Bill 2015. When we look back upon what has happened in the history of our country since 2007, it really does set the scene for what has come to pass. As the member for Hughes put so well, it has come to this. It has come to someone actually stepping up to the plate and having to make decisions to take these sorts of measures off the table and to modify the measures that are contained here: the portability of family tax benefit and the ceasing of the large family supplement.

Of course, in a perfect world, where everything is in black ink and not red ink, there would be no problem and it would be nice to be able to do it. It would be nice to be able to have supplements all over the place. But this sort of recurrent spending is just not sustainable anymore. We have been put in this situation. We have to look at these sorts of measures and we have to make these sorts of decisions because it is the right thing to do. It is the thing you have to do when you look to the future as a government and when you look at what the future could entail if we did not wind back the spending.

Yes, it is true that, thanks to what has happened in China, iron ore is no longer worth as much as it used to be. It is now maybe back to even less than historical levels, and that is a challenge that faces us. The commodity sector has been very good for this country, and we no longer have those sorts of things to back us up. I remember during the six years of the Labor government they talked about us squandering the benefits of the mining boom. This was when we actually had surpluses before 2007. If we talk about the allegations of squandering the proceeds of the mining boom, Australian people do not need to look that far back—only to the six years between the end of 2007 and 2013, when there was a change of government again.

This is the reality that really does present itself to us now. So when we look at measures like this—savings of $42.1 million for a change to the portability of family tax benefit and around $177 million for the ceasing of the large family supplement over the forward estimates—they are not big figures, but they are important steps. It is a signal to the nation that we are no longer in the situation where we can afford to do these sorts of things, where we can afford to say, 'You can go overseas and you can continue to be paid this sort of money for the more than six weeks that you are away,' with the exception, of course, of those Defence and Australian Federal Police personnel that are posted overseas and people like that. With the exception of those sorts of people, no longer can we be in the situation where we can afford to keep paying, and I do not think that it is unreasonable either. I do not think the Australian people can look out there and say, 'People should be allowed to go overseas and continue to be paid the family tax benefit under the current arrangements before this bill comes into effect.' I do not think Australians would say that what we are doing here is an unreasonable thing. I think the country knows that we have to take steps to rein in expenditure in the face of much-reduced revenue. So I do not think that it comes as a shock; I do not think it comes as a surprise. It is not as though people are being left destitute by either one of these measures. That certainly is not the case.

It is similar with the ceasing of the large family supplement. It is not as though each child does not attract a per-child payment. It is not as though that is not the case. But this large family supplement was something on top of that The point has been well made regarding the cost, and I do not for a moment suggest that the cost of raising four, five or six children is small by any means. But it is not as though the cost becomes exponential. The National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling in 2002, 2007 and 2013—and even the Henry tax review—came to the conclusion that the additional cost of raising those additional children is not 100 per cent as you have more and more children. There is no doubt that it is not easy—it is clear that it is not easy and the costs are still there—but, in fact, there is no real justification for including $177 million extra of this recurrent expenditure that we can no longer afford in the budget bottom line. As I have said before, in a perfect world, where there is a surplus every year, you might start looking at these sorts of things. I suspect that, in the future, when we get things back into the black, if there were expenditure to be made, as a first priority, it would be more along the lines of things that are going to have some tangible, economic benefit that is going to produce jobs and increase the economic output of the country. But, as it currently stands, we are not in a situation where these sorts of matters can be carried on.

I certainly endorse the substance of this bill. These savings are the savings that need to be made. These savings are important to be consistent with the circumstances that the country is now in, and I think the Australian people absolutely will support this. They do think that something needs to be done, and these measures are the measures that are required to bring things back to a more sustainable level of spending. We still have a long way to go—there is no doubt about that—with regard to balancing the budget. Much has been proposed on the savings side by the government. It is sad and unfortunate that the approach is not agreed with by all within the parliament. There are obviously many people who think that things can carry on and that increasing taxes on smokers is the way to bring things back into balance, but what we actually need to do is concentrate on reining in expenditure, not increase taxes.

To conclude, these two measures are important. We must achieve the savings. It is hard to believe sometimes, when I talk about $42 million and $177 million, that they are in some way modest or small numbers, but they are most definitely important numbers. It is vital for us to work to achieve these sorts of savings. Again, I believe that the Australian people, when they look at the substance of these measures, will see that these are good things to support and that, ultimately, they just must be done.

Without further ado, I certainly endorse this bill and commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context