Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not propose to long detain the House on the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2009. It does essentially three things: first, it removes the Australian Taxation Office from the administration of family tax benefit; second, it provides for an appeal to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, and ultimately to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, for people newly subject to income management in the Northern Territory; and, third, it ensures that people’s CDEP, or Community Development Employment Project, wages can be quarantined for the purposes of income management. The coalition will not be opposing any of these measures but has some reservations about each, which I will very briefly outline.

There is something to be said for allowing people to claim their family tax benefit by way of a reduction in their pay-as-you-go tax instalments. It will no longer be possible, under this legislation, for this to happen. I understand, though, from a briefing that was kindly provided by the minister’s office and the department, that there have been very few people claiming family tax benefit in this way and, as a result of that, notwithstanding its theoretical advantages, the coalition will not further object.

The original Northern Territory intervention legislation did not provide for appeals over income quarantining. The coalition would be happy for this situation to continue. We do not think that the quarantining of income is of a nature to routinely justify appeals beyond those to a Centrelink review officer but, nevertheless, given that this only applies to people who are newly subject to income management and not to the 17,000 or so already on it in the Territory, again, we do not want to pursue this objection.

Finally, the coalition wanted to turn CDEP employment into either real jobs or a kind of Work for the Dole. We wanted CDEP to turn into a stepping stone towards the real economy rather than be a permanent Indigenous economy. Our support for this measure to enable CDEP wages to be quarantined as if they were welfare payments should not be interpreted as surrendering our continuing reservations about the changes that the government is making in this broader area. Other than that the coalition is not going to oppose this legislation, and I do not propose to further detain the House on it.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in support of the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2009. This bill implements a 2008 budget measure. It removes the option of claiming the family tax benefit through the ATO and it makes a number of other amendments. One amendment it makes relates to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the capacity to review a decision under the Northern Territory income management regime. The third aspect relates to amendments affording new participants from 1 July 2009 in the Community Development Employment Project, the CDEP, with access to income support payments instead of CDEP wages and the CDEP participant supplement. Existing participants will continue to receive the supplement in addition to CDEP wages until 30 June 2011.

Only about seven per cent of current FTB clients actually claim the benefit through the ATO, and getting rid of this option just reduces bureaucracy, duplication and bureaucratic anomalies. It certainly reduces inconsistency. Currently, families can choose to receive the FTB as fortnightly instalments by making a claim through Centrelink or Medicare Australia. If they want to, however, families can choose to claim the FTB as a lump sum following lodgement of their income tax return at the end of any relevant year. That is quite common for those people who can actually afford it—that is, if they are high income earners or middle income earners. They effectively make a claim for FTB for a past period through Centrelink or Medicare Australia at the same time as they lodge their taxation return. From 1 July this year the option of claiming FTB for the past period through the taxation system will be removed. Removing the taxation system option for delivering FTB payments will, in my view, simplify the system and in the circumstances I am surprised it has not been done in the past.

I had a look at some figures on this. As I said, it was about seven per cent. About 154,164 clients of the system applied for lump sum payments through the Taxation Office. Just over 1,876,000 people—about 90 per cent—applied for fortnightly payments through Centrelink. In my electorate of Blair that has certainly been the experience. Generally speaking, those people who claim the FTB as a lump sum have high incomes—that is, they are very wealthy people in the circumstances—and can afford to wait till the end of the year to see their accountant and make arrangements accordingly. We are doing this by way of reform. We think it is a sensible way to go about it.

The second aspect of this bill contains a measure announced on 23 October last year. It is based on the recommendations of the Northern Territory Emergency Response Review Board. These amendments make sure that people under the Northern Territory income management regime will have access to the same jurisdictional rights, under SSAT and AAT appeals, as non-Indigenous Australians to income support and family payments. I think that is a fair thing in the circumstances. It allows natural justice to take place. It gives people who are subject to the Northern Territory intervention and the management of their income the same rights as other Australians. In the circumstances that is a good initiative. The income management regime was introduced by the Howard government. It was announced on 21 June 2007. Under the income management regime certain amounts can be deducted from a person’s income management account to meet the priority needs of their dependants, such as food, accommodation, utilities, transport et cetera. That amount is paid into an account controlled by Centrelink.

An individual can be subject to an IMR for a number of reasons. They are good reasons and they are reasons that protect children in the circumstances. I think that that is a sensible thing in all the circumstances. For example, a person can be subject to an IMR in circumstances where it is necessary to protect the child of that individual or if the individual is subject to the jurisdiction of the Queensland Family Responsibilities Commission and the commission has made a request for the provisions to be applied in the circumstances, if they are a resident of a specified area in the Northern Territory or if their child is deemed to have unsatisfactory attendance at school. Truancy is a challenge and if children do not go to school in certain circumstances, particularly in low socioeconomic areas, they do no have the same capacity to use their skills, talents and abilities in the future.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.