Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak to the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2009. The bill has three components: one budget measure and two non-budget measures. The opposition will be supporting all three measures.

Firstly, the bill introduces the budget measure designed to streamline the administration of the payment of a family tax package. From 1 July 2009 it will no longer be possible to claim family tax benefit through the tax office. Currently some Australian families elect to receive their family tax benefit in the form of a reduction in pay-as-you-go tax instalments. While only a small number of people are affected, some seven per cent of all FTB eligible recipients, this preferred method of receiving the payment will no longer be available. While generally supporting choice, in this instance the opposition will support this measure due to the small number of individuals involved and the efficiency savings realised due to the overall simplification of the FTB payment system. The choice of payment options of fortnightly, yearly and annual adjustments where necessary will remain with no changes to be made to payment rates as a result of the provisions contained within this bill.

Secondly, the bill provides amendments to the Social Security Act (Administration) 1999 to enable the Social Security Appeals Tribunal to review decisions made under part 3B of that act relating to a person who is subject to the Northern Territory income management regime. As most people in this place will recall, the original Northern Territory intervention legislation did not allow appeals of decisions to apply to income management. Ideally and personally I would like to see that situation be continued for all new determinations.

We have a lot of difficulty in understanding exactly how this is going to be pursued. On the basis that it appears to effect such a small demographic, we are not going to die in a ditch about it, but we will be watching that area very, very closely. It just seems very difficult to me in a community where much of the feedback is: ‘I’m living in the community. Because I’ve got to shop with my BasicsCard, I feel stigmatised.’ When you are starting to say that people, ‘Well, you can come up with specific reasons why the you don’t think your particular circumstances are such that you would need assistance with your budget,’ I think we are getting into a very, very difficult area, where people are having to make highly subjective decisions. But given the very small numbers, we would certainly be supporting that.

We are certainly seeing more money spent on food, clothing and essentials and obviously much less spent on at alcohol. Life in the community seems to be a world away from some of the despair and dysfunction endured up until about 18 months ago. I acknowledge there is much work to be done. I would certainly hate to think that this measure has been inserted in the bill as part of the signal that there is going to be a slow unwinding of any of the intervention measures. I certainly would not like to see a return to the dark days before the intervention. I understand that the measures that I have indicated affect a few new applicants. I am unaware of how many that will be, as it will not affect the 17,000-odd individuals currently on income management.

Thirdly, this bill will mean that new CDEP—that is, community development and employment program—participants from or after 1 July 2009 will receive income support payments instead of CDEP wages from CDEP providers. Existing CDEP participants will continue to receive CDEP wages until 30 June 2011, at which time they will also transfer to income support. The coalition wanted CDEP jobs turned into real jobs. CDEP was only ever designed to be a training and development program but unfortunately has evolved into a long-term job program. It also supported the state and territory governments by paying participants to do effectively what the state should have been responsible for. For a number of years the Commonwealth also, particularly in the area of child care on communities, enjoyed not paying people who should have been paid by accessing the CDEP inappropriately.

It was a great tragedy that, when I spoke to young people in many communities over that period of time, I found that their aspiration was to get onto the CDEP. It was certainly seen as an end game; it was a job forever. It was seen as an end rather than a process of training to prepare them for a job that would be paid as we would all understand that term. So we must continue to build on the platform that has been set up by the previous government to provide jobs with career and advancement opportunities for those in remote communities who seek advancement. There are presently not a whole heap of opportunities out there, but there are never going to be real jobs if the government sits back and relies on the CDEP and the Work for the Dole program alone. As I said, the opposition support this bill. We do so with the full intention to continue to monitor progress of government measures in the Northern Territory to ensure community life has improved, opportunities for work are created and community members are trained and equipped to take advantage of those opportunities as they arrive.

I will now turn briefly to the second bill being debated, the Family Assistance Amendment (Further 2008 Budget Measures) Bill 2009. This legislation implements three measures that are designed to reduce family social security debt. The first measure will allow Centrelink to adjust the level rate of family tax benefit paid fortnightly as an individual’s income changes. For the majority of family tax benefit recipients in stable full-time work there is not a problem of potential social security debt. But, for those either in casual work or who are self-employed, obviously the income fluctuations make it very difficult to determine exactly what payment should be made, because you are effectively unaware of it until the determination is made at the end of the financial year. The opposition supports this measure and will monitor with interest its effect on reducing on social security debt.

The second measure contained within this legislation will assist in reducing a debt arising from the overpayment of FTB by ceasing payments if an individual fails to lodge a tax return within 18 months of the end of the relevant financial year. As the rate of FTB is linked to income and a tax return is a method to accurately report income, if a return is not lodged then no FTB will be paid. This will ensure that an overpayment is not made and therefore a debt is not accrued if an individual’s income exceeds the threshold once it is reported through a tax return. Of course, we welcome the provision that, if a tax return is lodged within two years, the full entitled rate of FTB will be paid. Again, it is a measure that the opposition will monitor closely as it is implemented to ensure that the social security debt that we intend to avoid is avoided without causing any financial strain upon families.

The third measure makes some minor changes to the provisions surrounding the time in which the Australian Taxation Office can provide details of a customer’s details for the purposes of family assistance law. The opposition supports this measure, as we support the bill in anticipation that this will achieve the government’s stated objective of ensuring that all eligible families receive the family tax benefit and minimising the incidence of social security debt.