Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the wide range of issues covered in the provisions of this bill. As you have heard from my Labor colleagues in the other place we will be lending our support to a number of the measures contained in the legislation. I will focus my contribution on the aspects of the legislation we cannot support.

We will be opposing the interest charges in relation to certain welfare debts, the student start-up loans and the proposed extension of the Child Care Rebate limit. I understand the government will be moving to remove the amendment delaying the implementation of the new definition of 'charity', but I will be putting on record the overwhelming evidence we received during the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee hearing on this element of the bill.

We are also proposing amendments to the provision seeking to amend the National Gambling Reform Act and the Paid Parental Leave Act. As I have said, there are some measures in this bill that we support because they are sensible and prudent savings; however, I have deep reservations about other measures that have been cobbled together in this bill. These provisions are just the start, laying the foundation for the kinds of vicious cuts which will follow the Commission of Audit report. They are savings, not well targeted, for savings sake and cuts for cuts sake, for the sole purpose of contributing to the government's balance sheet.

For many people, for families all across the country, who each and every day struggle with the cost-of-living pressures, this is just more of the same. This is exactly what they can expect from this government. We have seen this all before with the government's attempts to scrap the schoolkids bonus as part of the repeal of the minerals resource rent tax. Like some provisions in this bill, cutting the schoolkids bonus impacts on millions of families across this country, a great many of whom may be experiencing financial stress. What this government fails to understand is that $400 for a primary school student and $820 for a high school student is an important sum of money for ordinary families dealing with cost-of-living pressures.

The first proposition in the bill that I wish to speak about is the proposal to charge interest on certain welfare debts. This includes debts incurred by people on Austudy, youth allowance and Abstudy. To apply an interest charge to these debts is mean and the evidence says it will not be widely successful. To put further stress on vulnerable people on these payments is not a fair way to chase repayments. These people should be supported, not punished. The government claims that these punitive measures will encourage debtors to repay their debt in a timely fashion.

Labor listened to the submissions of organisations that work directly with students, including the Student Representative Council of the University Of Sydney and the National Tertiary Education Union, which highlighted the financial stress under which many students already find themselves, including reference to research which shows that up to two-thirds of tertiary students are already under significant financial strain. We also note that during the hearings the Australian Youth Affairs Coalition argued that this measure is unlikely to make students pay back their debts on time. They said: 'In cases where young people are already struggling to pay existing debts the additional interest charge is not likely to serve as an incentive to pay on time.' The National Tertiary Education Union also argued that this measure may act as a disincentive to students seeking access to appropriate support, because of the fear of punitive debts, and this may lead to decisions not to engage in tertiary education. The government yet again seeks to punish those who are already vulnerable—the very people who most need support. Rather than encouraging people to repay their debts in a timely fashion, this proposal will simply make it harder to get by and harder to get a tertiary education, so we will not support this measure.

We will also not be supporting the student start-up loans that are proposed in this legislation. This measure seeks to change the current Student Start-up Scholarship program into an income-dependent loan program available to full-time higher education students in receipt of youth allowance, Austudy or Abstudy. When we were in government we proposed a similar measure, but it must be made perfectly clear that we proposed this measure as part of our plan to fund the Better Schools Plan, to make a significant contribution to increasing funding for our schools and for our children. It has become abundantly clear that the government have abandoned the so-called unity ticket on school funding. This government have shown time and time again that they have little regard for anything they said before the election. There is no real indication that savings from this measure will be used to fund education.

We know that only a Labor government can be relied upon to truly support higher education in Australia. In Labor's term in government we saw a massive increase in investment and participation rates of tertiary students. There are 190,000 more students at university today as a result of Labor's reforms, along with a 73 per cent increase in funding. This is in comparison with the record of those opposite which saw billions of dollars ripped out of the system through neglect when they were last in government. Now we have the ominous review of demand-driven funding for universities being led by the former Liberal minister Dr David Kemp at the behest of the Minister for Education.

As the shadow minister for higher education, Senator Kim Carr, has said, the Labor Party would be extremely concerned if this review becomes the stalking horse for increasing student fees for undergraduate courses, thereby limiting access for poorer students. In government we said we would be making changes to higher education funding to slow the rate of growth and ensure that our Better Schools Plan was appropriately funded. This approach was intended to develop and improve the education system as a whole from primary through to tertiary. However, as we now know, the government has turned its back on the commitment it made to education before the election. As parents and teachers now know, the Liberal government cannot be trusted on school funding. We cannot and will not support this measure.

Another measure in this legislation that Labor cannot support is the extension of the freeze on indexation of the upper limit of 7½ thousand dollars on the annual child care rebate. This proposal sits in stark contrast with the Abbott government's rolled-gold Paid Parental Leave scheme. On the one hand the government looks to implement the Paid Parental Leave scheme which will advantage the wealthiest in this country whilst at the same time effectively cutting the Child Care Rebate in real terms.

Labor understands the importance of increased support for Australian families struggling to meet the costs of child care. When in government we increased the Child Care Rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent and we increased the annual cap from $4,354 to the current limit of 7½ thousand dollars. When we were in government and proposed the temporary freeze on indexation of the rebate, the $100 million in savings was to support the implementation of the Early Years Quality Fund. The $300 million Early Years Quality Fund was intended to support quality outcomes for children by increasing professional wages of early childhood educators, helping early childhood services attract, train and retain these educators.

The fund, which has been recognised by the early childhood education industry as an important reform, has now been redirected by the government. The freeze on indexation of the rebate is now completely unjustified and will have unnecessary impacts on the industry, and on the children, parents and families who utilise child care without any benefits from the sector and these families.

Any of us who have had the opportunity to use child care or go to a childcare centre to talk to the parents and early childhood educators will know that one of the main issues they have is about the wages that are on offer for their staff and the wages that they are able to offer to retain their staff. Many of us here have been involved in the campaign that saw the Early Years Quality Fund come into being, the Big Steps campaign by United Voice. We know this was a campaign supported not just by United Voice but also by the parents and the families and the people who run childcare centres. They were all on board to ensure that something was done about the very low wages that are offered to early childhood educators.

This proposal also undermines the work currently being done by the Productivity Commission, which is undertaking a public inquiry into future options for child care and early childhood learning. The government's proposal to freeze indexation of the rebate makes a complete mockery of claims they have made about wanting to make child care more affordable for families. This proposal also shows that the government has no interest in dealing with the challenges of boosting workforce participation, particularly for women. The Labor Party understand that quality, affordable and available child care is critical to the nation's productivity and supporting women to participate in the workforce. We cannot and we will not support this measure.

As I stated earlier, I understand the government will be moving to remove the amendment delaying the implementation of the new statutory definition of 'charity'. However, I think it important that we put on record the evidence we received in the Senate committee hearing on this element of the bill. The sector has been waiting a long time for government to tidy up the definitions around the statutory definition of what constitutes a charity. The Labor government's Charities Act 2013 creates a statutory definition of what constitutes a charitable entity. The importance of the definition is that it guides the Australian Tax Office, the ATO, as to whether or not an organisation is eligible for certain tax benefits.

The bill codified existing case law and also explicitly stated that charities are free to critique the policies of political parties and candidates. The bill had widespread support in the sector. As Mr Nathan Macdonald, acting director of Justice Connect, told the committee on 9 December:

In our view the Charities Act is a step towards certainty and clarity for those seeking charitable endorsement and goes some way towards addressing the proliferation of statutory definitions on 'charity'.

We feel the Charities Act represents a piece of policy that is long overdue, having been considered and recommended by several major inquiries, including the 2001 charities definition inquiry and, more recently, the Productivity Commission inquiry in 2010. Consultation on the current definition was adequate and, while a number of the 200-plus submissions asked for some degree of tinkering to the Bill, it is fair to say that there was broad support for a single definition on 'charity' across the Commonwealth, with the end result being a definition that largely preserves and clarifies the common law.

There is broad support within the charitable sector for a statutory definition of charity, as very few want to be bogged down in court cases to decide if they are a charity. Mr David Crosbie, the CEO of the Community Council for Australia, also told the committee:

We recognise, as would everybody who has ever looked at the legislation and the definition of 'charity', that the current provisions are woefully inadequate, that they discriminate against small charities who cannot afford tax lawyers, and they are complex even for the most well-resourced charity in terms of understanding what is charitable and what is not. It was a massive step forward to get the level of consensus that was agreed through the 2011 consultations, the 2013 consultations and the 2001 consultations on a new statutory definition of 'charity' and we, like most of the charitable sector, celebrated the fact that we had clarity and some sense of being able to plan our activities based on a clear, concise definition of 'charity' that included things previously not included like advocacy, Indigenous disadvantage, housing and disaster relief.

Mr Crosbie's thoughts were echoed by the Reverend Tim Costello, who is chair of the Community Council of Australia and the Chief Executive Officer of World Vision Australia:

This new definition is extraordinarily important for all of us. With the consultations and over 200 submissions made, I have not heard of anyone in the sector who was troubled by this definition.

Ultimately, the coalition's policy is to scrap the definition of 'charity' and disband the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission in one move. Labor opposes both of these moves. The case has been put very strongly that the current legislation is important, and Labor is listening to the sector in opposing what was to be the delay of the implementation of the Charities Act. For a long time the sector has been calling out for a body like the ACNC, as well as for a statutory definition of 'charity'. We on this side think that, after several reviews and inquiries, their opinions should be listened to as they go about their important work.

I would also like to address the proposed changes to the National Gambling Reform Act which are contained in this bill. Problem gambling is a very real and very serious issue affecting around five million Australians, including friends, families and employers of people. The social cost of problem gambling in this country was estimated to be around $5 billion in 2008-09. This social cost is in addition to the almost $19 billion which is lost annually by gamblers around Australia. This is an enormous financial burden for Australian families. In 2012, Labor introduced measures aimed at tackling problem gambling. The bill before us removes all of the measures contained within the National Gambling Reform Act that would help these problem gamblers.

As outlined in the Labor senators' dissenting report on this and the other measures in the bill, we will be proposing an amendment to this legislation to ensure that, where there is a state-wide precommitment scheme in in place, venues must continue to have the capability to connect to that scheme. The government's legislation also recommits to further consultation across stakeholders. Such consultation and engagement is strongly supported by the Labor Party. The Labor Party remains committed to supporting meaningful measures to tackle the complex issue of problem gambling in our community. As the shadow minister outlined in the other place, Labor will revisit this issue and determine the best way forward, together with stakeholders across the community.

Finally, I want to discuss the proposed changes to the administration of the Paid Parental Leave scheme. It was, of course, Labor who introduced the country's first ever national Paid Parental Leave scheme—a scheme which, as at 31 December 2013, has seen over 364,000 people access paid parental leave since its introduction in January 2011. An additional 65,000 people have accessed dad and partner schemes since its introduction. Since the Paid Parental Leave scheme was introduced by Labor, it has been administered, in part, by employers. The scheme was specifically designed with this role for employers in order to help employers retain their skilled staff and to help employees remain connected to work and their careers while they were taking time out of the workforce to have a baby or adopt a child. The scheme was designed to be a workplace entitlement rather than a welfare payment. The scheme was designed to be simple for business, and a recent evaluation found that most employers have found their role straightforward. It also found that compliance costs have been minimal.

In its submission to the Senate committee inquiry into the provisions of the bill, the ACTU referred to the Productivity Commission's recommendation that employers should act as the agent for the government and pay its statutory leave on its behalf. The Commission noted that structuring payments in this way would strengthen the link between employer and employee, which should increase retention rates for the business and lead to higher lifetime employment by women. Evidence supplied to the same inquiry by officials from the Department of Social Services referred to the legislation review of the PPL that is due to be finalised in the very early part of this year.

Our shadow minister has outlined that we will be making amendment to the provision that the government is putting forward. We propose allowing small businesses with fewer than 20 employees to have Centrelink make paid parental leave payments— (Time expired)