Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Families, Housing, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further Election Commitments and Other Measures) Bill 2011. This bill seeks to amend various acts to achieve a range of amendments to existing legislation: firstly, with respect to the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act, to provide for modified arrangements for advance payments of family tax benefit and the payment of FTB part A supplement for a child turning four, conditional on that child receiving a health check prior to starting school; secondly, with respect to the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989, to determine a parent's taxable income by using their previous taxable income, indexed by growth in wages, when a tax return has not been lodged; thirdly, with respect to the Social Security Act 1991, to require payers of compensation to notify Centrelink of proposed payments of compensation; and, fourthly, to make various technical amendments to the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999, the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 and the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989.

The bill would make amendments to take effect from 1 July regarding family benefits. This includes rules for determining whether an individual is entitled to a family tax benefit advance and the amount of the advance, the rules as to reducing the individual's rate of FTB part A to effect repayment of the advance, and the circumstances in which a debt for the unpaid amount of the FTB advance is raised.

For the 2011-12 year, the maximum advance available will be limited to $1,000 and the minimum will be limited to $160.96. For subsequent years, the maximum and minimum amounts will be linked to the FTB child rate for one FTB child who is under 13 years of age, which is indexed on 1 July of each year. If the individual is repaying a previous amount, then their maximum amount will be reduced by the original amount of the previous advance. The default repayment period over which the advance will be repaid by a reduction in the individual's FTB part A instalment rate is 182 days, or 26 weeks. This period may span two financial years. However, the repayment period may be varied depending on the individual's circumstances. The new measures relating to the repayment of advance debts would see more flexible arrangements that will result in an individual generally repaying their advance from ongoing reductions of the part A rate, rather than a debt arising.

The health checks for young children measure will make the payment of the FTB part A supplement for a child turning four in a particular income year conditional on the child undertaking a health check. This measure will commence on 1 July 2011. The proposed amendments relating to 'determinations of adjustable taxable income' would modify the current rules applicable to the Child Support Registrar in determining a person's adjusted taxable income where a parent's taxable income has not been formally assessed. A new, more accurate default income arrangement will be introduced that uses a parent's previous taxable income, indexed by growth in wages, instead of a lower default income—that is, two-thirds of male total average weekly earnings—in cases where they have not lodged a tax return. These amendments replace the current rules for determining a parent's adjustable taxable income with new rules that will more accurately reflect a parent's income and ensure better support for children.

The proposed provisions relating to 'notice of payments of recompense for personal injuries' require payers of compensation, such as insurance companies, to notify Centrelink of proposed payments of compensation. Centrelink will then use this information to determine the social security entitlements of the compensation recipient or their partner. This will reduce the risk of individuals incurring unnecessary debt to the Commonwealth and receiving income support payments to which they or their partner are not entitled. Currently, social security recipients are required to notify Centrelink when they or their partner are to receive a compensation payment. The new provisions will streamline the notification process for compensation payments to social security recipients or their partners to ensure they receive their correct entitlements.

The bill also makes minor amendments to the family assistance law and child support legislation to clarify technical or drafting matters and to ensure that the legislation operates as intended. While the coalition will not oppose this bill, we on this side are concerned that this bill does not ease the cost-of-living pressures on Australian families. That is because the Labor-Greens alliance does not understand the pressure that Australian families are under. At a time when Australian families are struggling with the rising cost of living, cutting $2 billion from family benefits will put many under even more pressure. Over 2.1 million families will lose some support as a result of the real value of the family tax benefit supplement being cut. This is just the latest assault on families, delivered by this directionless government. Indeed, many families with parents earning average wages will lose hundreds of dollars a year through the freezing of the threshold at which families start losing base rate family tax benefit A. The family with a combined income of $110,000—for instance, with each parent earning $55,000 or one parent earning $65,000 and one earning $40,000—will lose $853.50 a year in 2012-13 if they have two children under 13 and $906.75 if they have three young children. Losing this support will hurt families, who have already seen many of their bills increase dramatically in recent years. Since December 2007, electricity prices have increased by an average of 51 per cent across Australia, the overall cost of food has increased by 13 per cent and education costs such as school fees have increased by an average of 24 per cent. With a carbon tax on its way—if this government gets its way—and mortgage interest rates having increased seven times since September 2009, repayments on the average mortgage have increased by over $500 per month in a little under 18 months.

The working families of 2007 have indeed become the forgotten families of 2011. Family benefits are being hit. Changes to private health insurance will also hit families. Labor's ideological disdain for independent schools will also hurt families. Labor's attack on regional students and youth allowance has already demonstrated the ruthlessness with which this government is treating those families outside our cities. The Gillard Labor government's decision to rip $50 million out of family relationship services will have a serious impact in the sector that strives to keep families together, including many of these families that are feeling pressure at the moment.

This Labor government will stand condemned for its assault on families. It will stand condemned for its alliance—its partnership—with the extremist Greens. In stark contrast, the coalition is committed to easing the financial burden on families by rejecting Labor's new taxes and paying back Labor's debt as soon as possible. This will take pressure off interest rates and living costs for all Australians. This bill is therefore yet another missed opportunity, a disappointment we on this side of the House have unfortunately become expectant of from this disastrous and directionless government.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further Election Commitments and Other Measures) Bill 2011. This bill has five key aspects. The first three aspects—Better Access to Family Payments, Healthy Start for School and Strengthening Compliance—Child Support—emanate from our election commitments. The remaining two aspects—streamlining the notification processes for compensation recipients and some minor amendments to technical or drafting matters within the act—emanate from the 2010-11 budget.

We on this side of the chamber believe that the purpose of government is to help families. Despite what has just been said, any objective analysis of what is being put forward would show that this bill does exactly that. I pride myself on being able to say that my electorate of Fowler is all about families. It is the most multicultural electorate in the country. It has a disproportionately high number of families, and I know that the measures contained in this legislation will be of benefit to them. My electorate—no doubt like yours, Mr Deputy Speaker Sidebottom—is very much centred around family and family life, and I know that the initiatives proposed in this bill will make a difference in balancing the family budget.

The first aspect of the bill is Better Access to Family Payments, which is something we committed to in the lead-up to the last election. It will provide more flexibility for advance payments to families on the family tax benefit. Families will be able to receive a larger and more flexible advance of their family tax benefit entitlements. This will help families meet those unexpected expenses, which I know will be welcomed by residents of my electorate.

My kids are now grown up, but as a father I get to see the unexpected expenses my kids are facing with my grandchildren going to school—school outings, uniforms and things like that. I get to see those things that impact on my daughter's and my son's expenses and what they have to do to have their kids ready for school or other activities. I understand how in reality, when this change is applied across the electorate, it is going to increase flexibility for mums and dads out there so they can make ends meet and, importantly, ensure that their kids do not miss out. As I understand it, the amount that will be advanced will be linked to the amount a family receives in benefits, with Centrelink on hand to give parents assistance, particularly with financial counselling or other support. That too is a big thing.

The upshot of this scheme is that families will be able to avoid high credit card costs. They will be able to avoid the costs of taking up personal loans and will be better placed to plan their budgets accordingly by being able to access the money when they need it and adjust their budgets to facilitate their expenditure over periods of less demand on income support. This may not seem much to those opposite, who seem to be very dismissive of it, but for those of us who have a high housing commission component in our electorates—a high proportion of single-parent families—that provision alone will make a very significant difference. I can assure you of that. The second component of this amendment is the Healthy Start for School package. It is another election commitment and affects family tax benefit recipients on income support payments. It links the family payments to the health checks of four-year-olds. If parents refuse to comply with the requirements, they will have their payments suspended. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will recall in the lead-up to the last election we emphasised significantly the importance of having every child being school-ready, every child being examined to make sure they were healthy—and four years old is the appropriate time, before they get to school.

Only last week I conducted an exercise with the Autism Advisory and Support Service. One of the big things they advised me of was that, whilst all these moneys are available for early intervention, unless a parent suspects that their child is slow or is possibly falling into the autism spectrum disorder band, ordinarily it is not brought to light until they get to school and a teacher decides to ask a parent in that respect. It is imperative, particularly for those disorders, that we have early intervention. That is where the difference can be made, in all sorts of areas—including my own grandson, who is on the spectrum. He was, very fortunately, diagnosed early, and I see the difference that that makes. There is probably more chance than not in him being diagnosed. But what this bill is seeking to do is to make sure all kids get a healthy start—and, as I say, we do need to ensure that our kids are ready to attend school, ready to learn and that, where there are issues, we are in a position to do something about them through early intervention. That is clearly an aspect of families embracing healthy lifestyles and providing appropriate assistance to parents. It is something that I am very fortunate with—as I said, I have a very active service in my electorate, the Autism Advisory and Support Service, run by its volunteer director, Grace Fava. They do an extraordinary job of assisting parents whose children are suspected as having, or have been diagnosed with, autism. This is one of the things that they keep emphasising to me: we need to take every possible step that all kids are given the proper checks and, where necessary, are able to access, in terms of autism, the $12,000 before they turn six to actually help them. Regrettably, a lot of kids—sometimes through denial with respect to their parents—do not go through that process, and as a consequence kids stand to miss out. This is something that was very much a key election commitment from us, and it is something we are proud to be delivering at this stage.

With respect to low-income families or where, unfortunately, marriage breakdowns and separations occur, in my electorate I do have very high levels of separation rates. I know that there is enormous stress on single-parent families. Again, this is something that will help in that respect, at least to ensure their kids have been tested and given every opportunity for a healthy start in their learning careers and throughout their education process.

The third part of this bill is again an election commitment, and it deals with strengthening the compliance in the child support system. At the moment, in the event of a parent who fails to lodge their income, or is late with their income tax return, a default income is used, which is currently two-thirds of the male total average weekly earnings. So, where one parent decides—maybe because their income has accelerated over a particular period of time, such as by being inflated by overtime or other things—to simply not put a return in, the male total average weekly earnings is the default income that is used for calculating child support. Obviously, that has certain advantages, but there is certainly an incentive for those who want to dodge their commitments to their children, as the default figure can understate the parent's actual income. The Gillard government has committed to making this system more fair and more accurate. That is not just about going out and trying to take money from people; it is trying to do that which is right and fair for the child. I know sometimes it is a bit hard to get through, particularly when parents are still in a combative position, but the basis of this particular amendment is to do what is fair for the child. We want parents to meet their obligations and support their children. This fairer system will replace the current system. The process will generally use the parent's last known taxable income, indexed by growth in average wages. In the event that the MTAWE process provides a higher income, that will be used instead, but in the main it will be the last known taxable income, indexed by average wages. I strongly support that measure, because I believe that in all these circumstances the person who cannot miss out is the child. It is clear that, in this respect, we must do the right thing and front and centre in our consideration must be the child.

The fourth aspect to the amendment deals with the streamlining of the notification processes for compensation recipients. This was a 2010-11 budget measure and will streamline the process of notifying Centrelink when payments are made by compensation payers, such as insurers. The compensation payers will now be required to tell Centrelink before compensation payments, either as a lump sum or as a periodic payment, are made to the recipients or their partners. This new requirement will ensure that people are paid the correct amount straight away. At the moment, there are times when Centrelink is not informed, which means that overpayments are made and those debts then have to be recovered. The recovery process creates difficulties for families in having the money taken back from them. But this is meant to ensure that people receive what they are justly required to receive under law and to ensure that the payment is correct when it is first paid. That way we avoid the issue of having to go out to recover overpayments.

I can speak about what that may mean for Centrelink. I can understand that it is a good thing for them, administratively. But it does seem to me that it is a very harsh thing to do for someone from Centrelink to come six or seven months later to recover a debt when, by that time, the money has already been absorbed into the family's normal daily running costs and looking after the family. We see that and we understand it, so what we are trying to do is ensure that the money people receive is appropriately adjusted so that the debt is not incurred in the first instance. The vast majority of people will want to do the right thing, and it will make the process for them easier. To that extent, it will actually reward people who are doing the right thing.

In my electorate a lot of people will benefit from what is proposed in this bill. I have a large grouping of families and I know that my electorate is over-represented with people with disabilities. The fact that we are now going to examine every four-year-old will be of extraordinary benefit to my community. (Time expired)

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend the government on this legislation and the amendments to it, but there are some points I want to make. The bill we are debating today adds to the Labor government's election commitment package titled Better access to family payments, and is due to come into effect as of 1 July—that is: flexible family tax benefits advances; the healthy start for schools measure; and the streamlining of compensation payments notification.

I welcome the proposed changes to the advance payment system, because many of my constituents in Hasluck will benefit from these changes. These amendments and the rules for determining whether an individual is entitled to an advance, and their eligibility for an advance, will assist those families that for various reasons need financial assistance to address a specific need. From my childhood experience I know how these circumstances arise and create both angst and additional pressure for a family.

Hasluck has some of the country's most disadvantaged families and rising petrol and food costs are already putting upward pressure on household incomes. The carbon tax will further hurt Hasluck families and hundreds of thousands of others around this country.

The change, however, will benefit those families who receive the benefits of the family tax benefit at the end of the financial year. Unexpected surges in cost of living or unforeseen emergencies require funding and many families often do not have the spare cash to meet the increased costs. This can affect families at any time. For example, it is not uncommon for circumstances to arise where a family member loses their job or is cut back to part-time hours or a family member needs an operation and is off work for a protracted period of time. Equally, treatment for specific illnesses can have a detrimental impact on a family. The provisions will provide a degree of comfort for those eligible for advances. I met a couple who were doing well financially until the breadwinner had a debilitating accident. He is incapacitated and can no longer work even though he has the desire to. He expressed to me his frustration at not being able to do so. They now struggle to make ends meet. I know of a number of families in my electorate that have found themselves in this position recently. Every one of them would benefit from the ability to draw down on these funds as a contingency to address a financial pressure point.

The legislation will enable procedures to be more flexible than previous arrangements, and it is subject to an upper or lower limit. Repayment of the advance over a fixed period will be abolished and replaced with a period of two financial years in which to pay off the owed amount. This will reduce the burden of forcing families to make choices about what they will or will not go without. Instead they can plan for these repayments. An additional burden is sometimes placed upon families by the time constraints, and the requirement to repay is sometimes not fully understood and therefore causes some angst when letters convey the immediacy of that payment. I compliment the government on the fact that it has given this time period to allow for those repayments to occur.

My office consistently receives calls from families having problems managing payments or repayments with Centrelink. For many it is a daunting process and reinforces a cycle of interdependency with the agency. It is like a marriage: both of you need each other but one does not understand the full complexity of the problems that they are negotiating with the other.

To be able to manage repayments in a way more suitable to the family would be a welcome development. Allowing a more flexible payment advance regime would also help certain families that are in most need. The coalition supports an Australia with smaller government and one that trusts its people to have enough intelligence to live their own lives and make the right decisions. History shows that if people are given more personal responsibility they are more likely to act in a responsible manner when it comes to their finances. I believe that this arrangement will allow people to make the best financial decision for their family, and it is long overdue. Another amendment I support is compulsory health checks for children turning four in a particular income year before parents are able to receive family tax benefit A. It is a sound health prevention measure that will enable a child's health to be assessed, treated and monitored through ongoing healthcare plans. I congratulate the government for including this measure in the legislation.

Prior to entering politics, I was the Director of Aboriginal Health in both Western Australia and New South Wales and I supported the implementation of child health checks. The health checks regime that the Labor government is seeking to introduce would ensure information collection which establishes a patient history and provides the opportunity to undertake an overall assessment of the child. This is something that has been needed for all children because it gives the capacity for those children to be identified at an early point in their lives and for specific illnesses, and even shortness of sight, to be identified. That would enable that matter to be rectified and for them to enjoy quality of life. The health checks regime will also include recommending appropriate interventions and the provision of advice and information to the child's parent or carer; and keeping a record of the health assessment, and offering the child's parents and/or carer a written report about the health assessment, with recommendations about matters covered by the health assessment. I strongly support the examination and assessments provided under Healthy Kids Checks, including: height and weight, because these are critical markers of development; eyesight; hearing; oral health, which covers teeth and gums; toileting; and allergies.

A family on income support payments does not neglect their child, or not know how to care for them, but their level of disposable income can be problematic and they may not prioritise a child health check as a result. This amendment will make people think about their child in a different way, and this small change can make a huge difference to a young person's potential for a healthy start to life and their ability to receive a decent education. It is a sad world that we live in when we must introduce an amendment to insist on health checks for four-year-olds, but it is a necessary one and I strongly support this move.

There is no silver-bullet solution to this problem for all of Australia's children. The overwhelming majority of young families in this country are strong, caring units that give their utmost attention to their children's physical, emotional and social development. The challenge is to find a balance between a government passing on this information and being seen as patronising to new parents. People have been having children for millennia, and a government does need to be mindful of this when revealing best practice to Australian families. There is no better substitute than family tradition, passed down from generation to generation, on how to care for our young children. However, there are individual families who experience pressures which create a range of problems, and in this instance these measures are needed to assist those struggling families.

What we now know is that, more than ever, a foundation of social, emotional and physical wellbeing at a very young age has a profound impact on the child in adolescence and adult life. Government has a responsibility to act in the best interests of all Australians. Studies show that a child growing up with unchecked or undiagnosed health problems will struggle to enjoy life fully, and the onset of chronic diseases will be an imposition on their quality of life. In this regard, I welcome the move to require health checks on young children turning four, as it will identify early on, for some families, health problems which might be cured or treated. This is part of a wider attempt to ensure the nation's young children have a better start to life. However, the devil will be in the detail of the program and services, and this is something that should be of concern to people watching this unfold under this Labor government.

An important part of this bill is the change in the process compensation recipients go through when receiving their payment. Suffering from an injury is stressful enough without having the government making it more complicated for the individual. Generally, people receiving compensation have suffered some kind of trauma, either mental or physical. Currently, when a person receives a compensation payment they must notify Centrelink of the receipt of this money so that Centrelink can determine their eligibility to receive their social security entitlements. Unfortunately, many do not realise their obligation to do so until Centrelink is aware of it and, as a consequence, the individual is burdened with a debt which they have to pay back to the Commonwealth. The new amendments will streamline the process and require payers of compensation to notify Centrelink of the payment so that Centrelink can automatically adjust the recipient's social security payments. I believe this process will remove an unnecessary and additional stress for people that have likely suffered enough prior to receiving the compensation.

In Hasluck, I see on a day-to-day basis many people who are affected in this way. There have of late been a number of terrible accidents in my electorate which have left the survivors disfigured, severely injured or unable to work. A tragedy can strike any of us at any time. For those in our society who are fortunate enough, through their hard work, to be in a strong enough financial position to support themselves, or a family member, after an accident that results in a disability, this change will not be a factor of concern.

The expression 'There but for the grace of God go I' is one we do not often think about. But when you see a severe motorbike accident on a highway, or a person being resuscitated on the side of the road, it puts it into sharp focus that these people were travelling to work. They probably kissed their loved ones goodbye and left for the day thinking, 'I'll see you tonight for dinner,' their heads filled with the thoughts and pressures that preoccupy most of us every day. But these people did not come home safely that evening and their lives were changed forever. When the initial shock of their life-changing injury wears off, and pragmatic thoughts surface, government has a moral and ethical responsibility to provide appropriate support to reduce the burden on both the individual and the family. We cannot stop accidents; by their very nature they are unplanned. But what a government can do is to make sure that, if compensation is awarded, the person struggling with this trauma is not penalised by Centrelink for forgetting, or incorrectly revealing, their compensation payment to the government.

It is easy for politicians, when we are debating legislation, to forget that these changes have a real impact on people's lives. These are not just words to score political points. Our collective decisions in this place have real and lasting impacts on our constituents, who trust that we will make the right decision in the national interest at all times. Parliament should be doing all it can to make people's lives easier. For the people of Hasluck and Australia who are suffering with an injury, this measure will streamline things and make the challenge much easier. I appreciate the benefits that will arise from this legislation because it focuses on the needs of Australians at times of both trauma and opportunity and provides the necessary steps that improve the quality of life for individuals and families, but ultimately for a community. In the long term, with the child health checks, for example, and the level of streamlining in the compensation arrangements, it removes to some extent the burden and pressure on a family. This debate provides an opportunity for us to help families to understand the programs and services that arise from the legislation. When interacting with people, too often one of the greatest challenges that we have in imparting information is people's understanding of the complex programs that we have put in place to assist them. To that end, I acknowledge the work of the minister. I believe that these measures will go a long way to make life much easier for the families of Hasluck and, in the greater sense, the families and people of Australia.

Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is great to speak on the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation (Further Election Commitments and Other Measures) Bill 2011, which gives effect to some of the commitments the government made during the last federal election. As members of the House will certainly know, we already gave effect to two other significant election commitments in an earlier bill to provide for improved support for families with teenagers to recognise the particular needs of those aged 16 to 19 in secondary school or vocational education.

Notwithstanding the very positive remarks of the previous speaker in this debate, I acknowledge that there have been other speakers in this debate and in previous debates who have reminisced on the contributions of the Howard government to assist families during its period of office. Certainly the measure put in place in the last bill, which gave effect to some of our election commitments relating to families, carried out a substantial piece of unfinished business in the Howard government years, when families saw their benefits drop by over $150 a fortnight, or around $4,000 a year, when their children turned 16.

In previous legislation before the House in this term, we provided for better access to the baby bonus to assist families with the up-front costs of having a new baby, so I am very pleased to speak in this evening's debate relating to family payments and legislation that gives effect to payments to families and carries on the significant initiatives which we put in place both in this term and in our last term.

My electorate spans some of the fastest-growing suburbs of Melbourne, in the south-eastern growth corridor. It is home to very many new families who will certainly stand to benefit from the measures we have already put in place to assist them and certainly from the measures which I hope will be put in place through this bill. These measures will give families more flexibility in the way that they are paid the family tax benefit. The measures strengthen the focus which this government has given to health checks for young children. They are measures which much more accurately assess the income upon which child support payments are based so that children get the financial support that they need and deserve and which ought to be paid for their welfare and upkeep.

The bill also includes measures which were outlined in the 2010-11 budget which will streamline the notification of compensation payments for the purposes of assessing income for Centrelink payments. The first of the measures contemplated in the bill reflects our commitment to better access to family payments through advance payments of the family tax benefit. This will ensure that payments are made much more flexible and will better enable families to meet unexpected costs as they arise. The government certainly believes in a sustainable and targeted family payment system that will continue to support Australian families for many years to come. The effect of the provisions of the bill will mean that from 1 July this year, subject to the legislation being finalised in this place and in the other place, families will benefit from a payment system that gives them much more scope to choose the size and timing of their advance payments. It is a system which we hope will help families meet certain unexpected costs. We certainly appreciate how readily unexpected costs can arise for families and cause tremendous stress for them.

The new system contemplated by the bill will enable families to budget better for their households. For some families we know that the new flexibility could mean avoiding unnecessary and much higher credit card bills than they might be able to afford or high interest personal loans or simply having to forego some important needs. The measures will ensure that families will be able to choose the value of their advance payment between certain minimum and maximum amounts and will enable families to repay those advances through adjustments to their ongoing fortnightly entitlements. The new arrangements will mean that families will no longer be restricted to receiving and repaying advances within two prescribed periods of the year, namely 1 January to 30 June and 1 July to 31 December. Families will be able to request more of their entitlements in advance, at any point in the year, and the advance will be recovered in the following six months.

There are certain safeguards which the bill puts in place. For instance, Centrelink will not approve an advance payment request if it would mean undue financial hardship for the family making the request. Families making repeated requests will be assessed to see whether they might benefit from financial support and counselling. This is a very important means of reaching those who have a need for additional support or are, for a range of reasons, having difficulty managing their finances from month to month. Another significant measure which the bill will implement relates to Healthy Start for School, which was announced during the federal election. I am particularly pleased to be talking about this measure because on the day that that announcement was made the Prime Minister, together with the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, visited my electorate. They visited the suburb of Pakenham and we all had the chance to engage with young mothers and their children, who were having health checks at a local GP clinic. They certainly appreciated the value of those health checks and it was great to see them put in place. This measure will make sure that all children have the opportunity to have those very important health checks at an early stage in their lives. The measure will make the payment of the family tax benefit part A supplement for a child turning four in a particular income year conditional on the child undertaking a health check. This is a measure which will commence on 1 July 2011. The Healthy Start for School measure delivers on a very important election commitment.

A new requirement will also be introduced for income support recipient parents or carers of four-year-olds, which is aimed at giving their children a healthy start for school. The measure will make the family tax benefit part A supplement conditional, for these families, on the children going through a basic health assessment, such as a Healthy Kids Check. It is aimed at ensuring the early detection of particular risk factors and delayed development illnesses, vision and hearing problems. It will ensure that families are given appropriate guidance in relation to healthy lifestyles and early intervention strategies.

We certainly know that evidence shows that such guidance is very important for low-income families. We know that better education and guidance on issues such as these is critical in helping to break down patterns of disadvantage and in ensuring that more Australians are given an opportunity to participate in the economic and social life of our country. Parents will need to confirm with Centrelink that the health check for their particular child has been undertaken. Again, there are safeguards in the bill, and particular provisions which relate to exceptional circumstances, where it is possible for the new requirement to be waived where it is appropriate to do so.

The third measure that the bill will implement is the strengthening of compliance in the child support system. It is another of the government's election commitments and it ensures that the current policy for child support assessments, which uses a default income figure, is updated to reflect, more appropriately, a parent's actual income. At present the child support assessment for a parent in these situations reflects the default of a figure equal to two-thirds of male total average weekly earnings. We know that this default figure very often understates the parent's actual income, with very significant impacts upon the levels of child support which are paid. The new process will generally use the parent's last-known taxable income, indexed by the growth in average wages. But as a default, if the current process—using two-thirds of male total average weekly earnings—would have produced a higher income, that figure will be used instead.

The bill is aimed at implementing a significant range of policy initiatives which provide for flexible payments to families and appropriate and very helpful health checks, which will go to assisting families with the health of their children prior to reaching school age and will ensure that children are afforded appropriate financial support through the child support system.

There are a range of other measures that are included in the bill that are aimed at strengthening our system of welfare payments. They reflect our government's ongoing commitment to improving a system which provides support to families, support to those people in our society who require a safety net and the additional assistance of our government in terms of their finances. I am particularly pleased to be able to support these initiatives which were announced during the federal election and in the 2010-11 budget. I certainly commend the bill to the House.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation (Further Election Commitments and Other Measures) Bill 2011 in principle. Its basic tenants are sound. I do, however, need to point out that there are major issues in relation to child support assessments, which we will come to shortly.

In relation to the family tax benefit advance, we in this House must recognise that there are times when people simply have nothing. There are times when there is simply no money, nowhere to live and no food in the pantry. We must be there to support people in these predicaments, which more often than not are not of their making. There will be times when bonds need to be paid or there is an unexpected medical expense which cannot be covered. It is right that we extend this advance to people at such times as this.

I will just add a tail to that by saying that we—I mean the staff at Centrelink et cetera—must be very clear, when people are availing themselves of this service, that the money will need to be repaid. That is where the arguments can start. We have all been assaulted by people complaining about the staff at Centrelink not telling them this or that. I know that in my office, when we consult with staff at government departments, invariably we hear that the process has been explained, and in great detail. It is just that when someone is desperate for money they listen to nothing except the 'sign here' part.

I am proud of the level of service provided by Townsville Centrelink office and those officers dealing directly with people in need in my city. I have made the point previously that you never see anyone coming back to Centrelink saying, 'Thank you; my benefits were paid on time and they were exactly what you were promising.' The staff here often see people only when, in the clients' eyes, there is crises. This is where it gets tough for the staff. It is such a tense time for people on benefits. Most people do not want to be on them, and most people who need them are under the pump when they come into Centrelink. Half the time of an interview is taken up with getting the client to calm down so that the process can be explained. I would like to see continued training in customer service levels. We must move our public servants towards what everyone relates to as the McDonald's service mentality, where every person is greeted with a level of enthusiasm. Customer service is at the heart of this. Too often—and we are all guilty of this—the next client pays for the attitude of the previous client. It does not matter if the previous client has sworn at them and called them names; it is not the fault of the next person in the queue. We must attract professionals and recognise that this role is vital in limiting conflict all the way down the street and even back to people's homes.

The thing about debt is that once it starts to accumulate, especially where low income is concerned, there seems to be little or no chance of people getting back on top of it until someone eventually comes along and puts a stop to it. That is a very hard thing to do, but by far the biggest issue facing families and budgets is the issue of child support. I am sure that I speak for the majority of members in this House when I say that child support is the No. 1 issue where people go to see their local member as a last resort. Certainly it is the case in my electorate. The problem is that you could be seeing the ex-husband immediately before the ex-wife. They will tell their stories to the best of their ability and there will not be a similar thread amongst them. Every family has one party being robbed blind while the other party sits at home spending the money on cigarettes and tattoos and not on the children. We all see them every week. I feel for them. I tell them they do not like the laws of speeding, which are black and white—no argument. If you are doing 101 kilometres per hour in a 100 zone you are speeding. The laws around child support and children in general are varying shades of grey. One side will say that the CSA is robbing them blind while the other will say that it is belting the ex up with a feather. The CSA cannot win no matter what happens, and the amendment to the legislation to determine taxable income when a tax return has not been lodged by using previous taxable income and indexing it will produce similar results to the mess we currently find ourselves in.

The fight in which parents are engaged and the children at the centre of that fight can be about making the other side pay. It can be about power in the relationship. It can be about jealousy. It can even be about the children. I do not mean to be flippant about this, but, when you have someone sitting in your office with their children telling you just how bad the other parent is and colouring it quite significantly, it makes you wonder what they are saying at home. A constituent came to me who felt that he was trapped by a woman. He said that he barely knew her and she did not even know where he lived, and yet he is faced with the CSA taking his pay for a child he did not want and does not want to see, to a woman whose last name he did not even know. Still, there is a child involved.

Using the last taxable income figure and indexing it is just too long a bow to draw. Circumstances change so much and this is just not fair to anyone. I would question why people do not complete their tax returns, although I know there are a number of obvious reasons why they do not, but I do believe that the CSA should not be put in the position of making arbitrary decisions. Too often, the hands of the CSA are tied.

I have a friend who left the matrimonial home. He is now 52 years old and has just signed a 25-year mortgage on a one-bedroom unit. His ex-wife sold the family home for over $1 million and has no debt. As each of their three children reached 18 you would think his payments would decrease, but his ex-wife successfully argued that he actually had more available cash and therefore could afford to pay more. Anyone who has a teenager knows that when they hit 18 you are only beginning to make the payments. Yet, as much as he argued the point, the decision was never changed. He always had to stump up more money.

I always say that, when you are talking to parents who are divorced, there are three sides to the story: her side, his side and the truth. The problem with this amendment and the act in general is that they do not and cannot take into account every variable. What we in this House have to do is support the CSA with a framework around which they can work.

I have been asked on a number of occasions by constituents to fully review the child support mechanisms as the level of discontent is just so great. Mind you, we must always keep in mind that no-one is beating a path to the door of their federal member to tell them that they feel they are paying the right amount of support and that the money is being used correctly. More's the pity. There has to be a place where people can go when the going gets too tough. The appeals process now leaves both sides angry and bewildered. There has to be a place where a couple, or their representatives—although I would prefer it if legal representatives were not used—can go to discuss and conciliate a result in front of a panel of some sort. Even if you do come out with the same decision, at least you have been heard. What we are hearing now is that people are just not being heard.

This story will, again, not be new to members. A couple have split. One or both have new partners and new children. The ex-wife has a new baby and therefore is not working at present. The ex-husband is told to pay more maintenance for his children, even though his ex-wife's partner, who knew about the children and walked into the relationship, is working in a high-paid job. The ex-husband has a new wife and a new child, but seemingly this does not matter; he just has to pay more.

Who wins in this argument? I do not know the answer to that question, but I can tell you who does not win—the children of the first marriage, who have done nothing wrong. Their expectation is to be housed, fed and educated by parents who love them. Unfortunately, the current method makes too many parents look at the children as pieces of property and millstones around the current domestic arrangements. For the sake of the children, there must be an appeal process where one party can go and explain their case and have it heard with empathy. For the sake of the Child Support Agency officers there must be an empathetic final tribunal where parents who feel they have been hard done by can have a say on their future and where all the facts are presented.

I am the parent of three children whose ages range from nine to 18 years. I know firsthand the costs involved in raising children and about the entire grey area that is family law. There is no section of law that has had more inspection, review and attempts at improvement. I support what we are trying to achieve here, but I just think we have to give parents a forum where they can feel they are being listened to. That is what it gets down to when you are a parent sitting in an electoral office with someone who has had a CSA problem. What they want is to feel that they have been listened to—that they have had a forum. We owe it to our people in the field, the CSA officers, to not make them the final front.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further Election Commitments and Other Measures) Bill 2011. I support this bill because, as an Australian and a member of the Australian Labor Party, I deeply value the role that families in our society play. I have long believed that if a government is one that supports families it will provide the necessary financial support for families who find themselves experiencing financial hardship.

I firmly believe that you cannot state in this parliament that you support families unless you support comprehensive, efficient and effective family support. During my previous career as a teacher, I gained firsthand experience of how financial hardship can devastate families. Indeed, as a member of parliament and through the experiences of my wonderful staff and the work that they do for our community, I know that we are often confronted with constituents who are experiencing financial hardship in their families. This bill succeeds in advancing the cause of alleviating financial hardship for just such families.

The main provision in this bill that I support is the increased flexibility it provides for families seeking an advance on their family benefit payments. Such flexibility can ensure that unexpected costs can more easily be paid without relying on credit and thereby worsening the financial position of these families. Under this bill the maximum rate of advance payment would be linked to the family's rate of payment. Overall, a maximum amount of $1,000 will apply. The general maximum rate of payment that can be advanced under this bill is 7.5 per cent. Currently, the maximum advance amount is fixed at $324. This full amount can be advanced only twice a year, specifically on 1 July and 1 January. Sadly, that legal requirement and nicely organised program does not actually fit with the reality of people's lives. We need to consider that the reason that many families need to advance their benefits is that unexpected expenses may incur not on 1 July and 1 January.

All families will on occasion experience unexpected costs, and I am sure that all members in this House have experienced this themselves. Such costs can relate to the breakdown of whitegoods in a house, a car needing to be repaired or urgent repairs needing to be made to a house. In fact, I am mindful of my own experience when, two days before Christmas and very shortly after the birth of our second child, our washing machine broke down. Gladly, we were employed and were able to pull the money together. But I can remember going shopping with my mother on that occasion for a washing machine and thinking that I would be very sensible and buy a cheaper version. My mother looked at me in disgust and said, 'Look at the size of your family and the ages of your children. You'd better figure out, darling, that all your washing days are ahead of you. You need to buy the right washing machine.' Those sorts of decisions which need to be made, and based on the guidance of those who have gone before us who can lead us in the right direction about how we sensibly can spend money, are going to be enabled by allowing flexibility for people who want to make good decisions in the interests of their family, just as I did on that occasion just a couple of days before Christmas.

Similarly, we cannot forget that medical expenses are often unpredictable—in fact, they are always unpredictable—and that such expenses can have a devastating impact on family budgets. People do not and cannot plan their sicknesses. They do not organise sickness around peak earning times. Under this legislation, families that are receiving assistance from the Commonwealth will be able to request their entitlements in advance at any point of the year, as required. This allows for those less financially adaptable members of our society to manage the complex and challenging realities of living. This provision will enable the advances that they need when they are required, and it is a vast improvement on the previous, inflexible system where advances were available only twice a year. Whilst enabling advances to be made, the previous system was limited in its effectiveness because the advances were not in tune with the needs of real people and real living. This legislation accepts that flexibility is a critical factor in determining the success of such a program, allowing advances that can then be repaid through adjustments via ongoing fortnightly entitlements. The bill provides families with an additional choice and additional ownership of their own financial futures by allowing them to manage their family budget.

Importantly, this bill represents a much needed alternative to the option that currently exists where families that might be disadvantaged are required to rely on credit cards or, even worse, extremely high-interest small loans when unexpected costs arise. This bill also provides a much needed alternative to simply having to make do without an important family requirement when confronted with an unexpected cost. The assistance with financial literacy that this measure offers is also evident. Importantly, a safeguard will be provided in that Centrelink will not approve an additional advance payment if it is clear that it would result in financial hardship.

I am proud to support this reform because it represents this government's strong and proud record in sensible and practical reforms to the welfare system. This flies in the face of general criticisms of those opposite that this government has not succeeded with a reform agenda nor achieved positive economic and welfare reform. Additionally, it flies in the face of criticisms that reform cannot occur in this parliament. As the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the Leader of the House, put on record last Thursday, 26 May, as of 1.30 pm last Thursday the Gillard government has passed 112 pieces of legislation through this House in eight months. This compares with the 108 bills passed in the first 12 months of the Howard government. Apart from productivity and efficiency, this legislation reveals other Labor government commitments.

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 34. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.