Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1), (3) and (4) on sheet 5251 together:

(1)    Schedule 6, page 134 (line 3), omit “to those under 18”, substitute “by instalments”.

(3)    Schedule 6, item 3, page 134 (line 16), omit “for those under 18”.

(4)    Schedule 6, item 3, page 134 (lines 17 to 27), omit subsection 47(3), substitute:

        (3)    If the claimant is entitled to be paid baby bonus in respect of a child, the Secretary must, after each of the first 13 instalment periods that end after the determination granting the claim is made, pay to the claimant ¹/13 of the amount of baby bonus that the claimant is entitled to be paid. The Secretary must pay it a such time as the Secretary considers appropriate and to the credit of a bank account nominated and maintained by the claimant.

We also oppose schedule 6 in the following terms:

(2)    Schedule 6, item 2, page 134 (lines 9 to 13), TO BE OPPOSED.

In my speech on the second reading debate in this place not long ago, I outlined the Greens’ concerns about requiring periodic payments to be limited to those under 18. The Greens believe that periodic payments should be for all recipients of the baby bonus. We believe that the reasons articulated by the government on the Family Assistance Office website—although the payment was described on the website as the ‘maternity payment for teenagers’—could equally apply, in nearly all cases, to those over 18. I am aware of examples where lump sum payments have been made to those over 18 who have probably made questionable purchases with those as well, similar to the way in which—as some people have been questioning—those under 18 have made some questionable purchases with their lump sum payments. The Greens believe that periodic payments should be extended to all recipients of the baby bonus.

I would like to ask the minister whether the department is aware of whether the list of circumstances articulated on the website has led to some problems with those over 18 with lump sum payments of the baby bonus. Those circumstances are: inexperience in handling large sums of money, situations where they may be pressured to use the payment unwisely, situations where they may be experiencing domestic or family violence, a history of difficulties with managing finances, gambling problems, substance addiction, homelessness, intellectual disability, or mental illness.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note with interest Senator Siewert’s amendments. The fundamental difference between the government’s position and Senator Siewert’s position is that we believe providing a lump sum is, in all circumstances where it is not going to provide a disincentive, the very best way to go for somebody who requires, on the birth of their child, a number of materials. For them there is obviously a bonus and a benefit from having a lump sum rather than periodic payments. We have ensured that we will maintain that position except in circumstances where we believe that the recipient of the lump sum may be vulnerable. We have the capacity to assess the nature of that vulnerability through counselling processes and through a demographic assessment. Whilst some people within a demographic may well have the capacity to be able to receive a lump sum, it has been reasonably decided that it is in the best interests of people under 18 years of age, because of their inexperience—generally speaking, for someone under 18 years of age it would be the first time they had received a lump sum of money of this nature—to provide that in 13 payments.

As part of the principle that the lump sum is the very best way to provide the benefit, Senator Siewert, we would continue to support the notion that the lump sum should be provided except in circumstances where we believe people are vulnerable. I understood from the Greens amendments and from your second reading speech that your notion is that we would provide it in instalments unless we could demonstrate through some counselling process that it was safe to provide it in a lump sum. I take your point, Senator, but I hope you understand that is clearly the intent of government to provide the very best benefit we can. We think the circumstances are such that the very best benefit, which is a lump sum payment, will be paid unless vulnerable sectors and individuals are identified through the demographic assessment or through our counselling process. That is why we have decided to pursue the route that we have.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What happens therefore when those under 18 require a lump sum payment for the very reasons you have just articulated? What will occur when those under 18 are required to buy, for example, baby furniture, or when they have the other expenses which you believe those over 18 face?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is clear: we believe that all those individuals under 18 are vulnerable. We do not have a mechanism to say, ‘You are under 18 but you can somehow demonstrate non-vulnerability.’ It is perhaps useful to look at what they would be provided at that stage. From 1 July 2007, the maximum fortnightly rate of government transfers available to an under-18-year-old single parent with one child under five will be $525.10. That is the parenting payment for a single person. The family tax benefit part A is $145.46, the family tax benefit part B is $125.02 and the first of the 13 instalments of the baby bonus is $317.92. This makes a total of $1,113.50. Even with the $317.92 as an addition, because there is a substantial amount there we believe this is still a reasonable provision of the baby bonus.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition (Social and Community Affairs)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor do not intend to support Senator Siewert’s amendments. I will speak briefly about our concerns in relation to her amendments so that Senator Siewert understands them. Labor certainly support paying the baby bonus by instalments for mothers under the age of 18 because we do have serious concerns regarding the particular vulnerability of young mothers. Our position on this issue has been informed by some of the professional experience of respected youth workers such as Father Chris Riley of Youth off the Streets. That program in particular has raised very serious concerns about the extent to which the lump sum payment can cause—and I am using his words, not ours—’children to have children’. The provision of support for young babies is being increased, and we believe that providing staged payments for young mothers under 18 is good public policy which protects the interests of both mothers and their babies and which allows mothers to adjust to parenthood. The minister has just indicated the way in which the staged payments play out in terms of the support benefits that mothers will receive, and we believe that that is an equitable way to approach it.

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Australian Democrats I indicate that we support the amendments. We are actually in the process of circulating the same amendment but we have put a hold on that because it makes more sense to support the ones before the chair in the name of Senator Siewert. We initially circulated a backup amendment because of our concern at the discriminatory provision that we are currently debating. That is the notion that those below the age of 18 should be given payments by instalment and therefore that those young women, in this case teenage women, are mature enough to have a child—and I am sure there would be some people who would debate that notion—but are not mature enough to handle money in a lump sum. To me that is a concern.

My preference, and my party’s preference, is that, if the instalment argument is to carry weight—and I think it does have some validity—it should be applied across the board. Why not provide payments on a fortnightly basis for all those women who as mothers are eligible for the payment? The Democrats are on record almost a squillion times—if someone wants to define a squillion!—in this place extolling the virtues of a national paid maternity leave scheme provided by government, not as an impost on business. We had concerns about the initial baby bonus and then its replacement, the maternity payment, which is now back to being the baby bonus but obviously as a somewhat different scheme that is certainly more supportable than the original baby bonus. This scheme, however, has its flaws. We know that. It does not necessarily provide a payment that enables working women in particular to be compensated for time out of the workforce—a time out that is a biological imperative given the fact that women are responsible for giving birth to children. That is the reason for our strong support for maternity leave as a priority and parental leave as something that is equally important to provide, but we also recognise that there is a biological difference involved.

We had the maternity payment, the new baby bonus, and now this debate before us relates to the instalment payment process. It is one that we think would have merit if it were applied across the board. That way it would solve some of the concerns that people have in relation to younger mothers. It would also deal with what newspaper articles have talked about of women of all ages going out and recklessly spending on whitegoods as a consequence of receiving a lump sum payment. And, no, I did not feel the need to go out and buy whitegoods or anything else with the maternity payment; I actually did not claim it. The issue of women’s access to this payment is important if we are going to acknowledge the role of mothers in our society to support this so-called fertility boom, whether there is one or not, over the years. We have to acknowledge that women should receive some support and that it should come from government in some form. It should be equal. That is, it should not advantage high-income earners over others. It should be systematic so that women who take time out of the workforce are compensated just as women who choose to stay home—and it is all about choice, or at least it should be—should receive some level of support as well.

In terms of this age discrimination with which we are confronted today—and I understand that the government is talking about this from the perspective of being concerned about vulnerability—I cannot help, Chair, but to say through you to Senator Scullion that we have to be very careful where the slippery slope of paternalism comes into this debate. I know some women who might be considered older mothers who would not necessarily treat a lump sum in a way that some may deem sensible, just as I know teenage mothers who would deal with a lump sum with integrity and the financial cleverness that some of us may not always be capable of.

The Democrats will be supporting the amendments. We are not circulating one of our amendments and we have withdrawn the other one, which, I say to Senator Siewert through the chair, I think would have been a backup amendment that would not necessarily achieve the same outcome that you and I and our parties would like to achieve. I have also spoken to people in the sector, people of all ages and various sector groups in relation to this issue and the consensus seems to be that if you want to resolve some of the issues that people are aware of then you do it with instalments for all. I might also put on record that, whilst I am conscious that there is a debate about the fertility boom and increases in pregnancy in Australia, particularly among certain groups of women, we need to remember that there has been a slight decline in the rate of pregnancies for 18-year-old women. Obviously the figures that we deal with tend to be from 2005 or 2006, if we are lucky. I think we are still waiting on some of the 2006 figures. Certainly it is worth noting that, from 1980 to 2005, bearing in mind that the baby bonus was introduced before 2005, there was a decline in the rate of pregnancies for 15-year-olds to 19-year-olds. I know that there are elements of that argument that are up for debate, but certainly there is a decrease for 18-year-olds.

Although the minister uses terms such as ‘disincentive’—and forgive me if I misrepresent the minister because I was running down the stairs as I was listening to him—I do not believe that this payment is necessarily an incentive to have a child. Of course, there will always be exceptions to the rule, but we should remember the headline we all read when the maternity payment lump sum was introduced. Again, I want to make it clear that it was not just about so-called teenage mothers; it was about all mothers and all families going out and buying, namely, whitegoods. I think that we have to move on from some of those superficial, simplistic headlines and look at some of the facts and figures. Yes, we should consult with some of the people in the sector but, if we are going to make this fair, it should apply to everyone. I cannot cope with the notion that some women are old enough to have kids but are not old enough to have a lump sum. That just does not make sense to me and that is why I will be opposing the government’s measure and supporting the amendment that Senator Siewert was, unfortunately, a little faster than I was in circulating.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just so I can get it clear in my own mind, I presume the draft that you are referring to that is being withdrawn is the amendment on sheet 5246?

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is that the one in Senator Bartlett’s name or my name?

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is the one in Senator Bartlett’s name.

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can confirm that that has definitely been withdrawn.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

By the way, Senator Siewert, item (2) will be put separately because it is in opposition to item 2 of schedule 6. The question now is that Greens amendments (1), (3) and (4) on sheet 5251 be agreed to.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that schedule 6 stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment (5) on sheet 5251:

(5)    Schedule 6, item 3, page 135 (after line 3), at the end of the item, add:

      (3B)    The Secretary may:

             (a)    vary the timing or the amount paid for the purposes of subsection (3) on the recommendation of a qualified social worker; and

             (b)    if an amount is required for a major purchase, direct that the payment be made in a specified manner for a specified purpose.

This amendment allows for a lump sum payment on the recommendation of a social worker where it can be demonstrated that a lump sum payment is necessary in order to a make major purchase to assist a person under 18 who, in theory, would have to have periodic payments. The arguments that the minister made about the benefits of lump sum payments also apply to those under 18. In fact, I would argue that in some cases it is probably more important for those under 18 to be able to, with guidance, make lump sum purchases. They may need to buy, for example, baby furniture, and they may need to acquire accommodation or a car. There are a number of things that those under 18 may require a lump sum payment for, for the same reasons the government put for those over 18 when they were opposing our amendments to require periodic payments for all recipients.

The Greens believe that periodic payments should be for everybody and, if recommended by the department or on the advice of a social worker, a lump sum payment also be made available. Of course, the government and the ALP have just rejected those amendments. We believe that there does need to be provision for those under 18 who are on periodic payments to be able to access a lump sum payment if necessary. Therefore, we move this amendment to enable that decision on lump sum payments to be made. As I understand it from previous answers, there is no provision for those under 18 to be able to access a lump sum payment in an emergency. I ask: what provisions are there if people under 18 require a larger sum of money than is available under the periodic payments? I am aware of the other schedule the minister was talking about.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I again draw the senator’s attention to the $1,113.50 that will be available in the circumstances that I described in my previous submission. I am somewhat confused by the notion that, after making an argument in this place that we should only have payments over a period of time—13 payments—we now turn around and say that there are circumstances where somebody under 18 would need a lump sum payment. The simple answer is that, no, we do not have any arrangement for people under 18 years of age to receive a lump sum payment. That is because all the advice and the feedback from the community was that it should not be available to those people who are under 18—and remember for some time we have provided it for people under 18. So this is not a ‘what if’; we are moving on what we consider considerable public feedback and feedback from professionals in the area. As the senator would well know, this was well discussed in the media. We, as a very responsible government, are responding to community concerns on this matter. It is not our intention to provide lump sum payments for people under 18. That is why there is no provision for it under this legislation.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do feel that the minister has misrepresented what I was arguing previously. If our other amendments had passed, this amendment would apply to everybody. This amendment was designed basically as a ‘you can get your cash quick if you can demonstrate you need it’ clause for everybody. Even though our amendments that were seeking to make periodic payments available for everybody did not get up, we still believe that this amendment should apply to those under 18.

I heard the minister say that this is what the community wanted. Not all the community said they wanted it. I draw his attention to the comments that were made in the submission and during the Community Affairs Committee inquiry into this bill by, for example, the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children, who specifically asked for a clause like this. They said that they could see some of the arguments that were coming from the community, and some of the arguments around helping some people under 18 if they had financial troubles to assist them through the periodic payment process, but that there should be an amendment that provided for lump sum payments where necessary. I cannot believe that the government believe—and I am very sorry if they do—that every person under 18 who has received the baby bonus until now has used the money inappropriately. I do not believe that the government believe that. I do not believe that they believe that every person under 18 has enough resources to be able to buy the sorts of equipment that may be necessary for those under 18 to be able to set up a nursery, a home, to buy provisions that a baby requires. I repeat: the same argument that applies for those over 18, where the government have said that they feel the best way to provide for them is a lump sum because there may be necessary purchases et cetera, applies for those under 18. There may be circumstances—and in the amendment that is on the recommendation of a qualified social worker—where lump sum payments are necessary. I ask again: what happens if more money—I appreciate the amounts you have articulated that will be available—is necessary in order to set up a home or nursery or to provide for the child?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly had no intention of misrepresenting the senator, and I withdraw any remarks that she may have taken to be that. I reiterate: it is this government’s intention to provide the baby bonus as a lump sum to all those, except those either by demographic or as individuals, who we have identified as vulnerable. That is our policy on this matter, and it reflects community concerns about this matter. By demographic, we consider those individuals under 18 to be vulnerable in a general sense. Yes, there may be individuals outside of that, but we have decided that, as a demographic, this is the safest approach and we believe it will be supported.

The way we consider the matter of other people who are having a lump sum payment and who are considered vulnerable is that, as a part of the lump sum payment, everyone who applies for the lump sum payment understands that they have access to a counsellor. Through that counselling process a number of things can happen, particularly a recommendation from a counsellor that they have instalment payments—or in fact it could be by choice. You may choose to say: ‘I may be in a position where I would prefer to have instalments rather than lump sum payments. You may make those payments.’ The clear answer is no, we will not be providing in this legislation for particular exemptions for people who may be in a vulnerable demographic. I am not sure how it is being proposed that we assess people who are not; I would suggest that it is probably not through a counsellor. We are not providing that because we believe that generally, as an age demographic, it is quite reasonable that that would be the case. As I have said, this is a lump sum payment. That is our clear intention and it is simply done by exemption on vulnerability.

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to clarify the use of the term ‘counsellor’, as my understanding is that ‘qualified social worker’ is the terminology used in the amendment. This is not just a perfectly good backup amendment; it is a very good amendment in its own right. Clearly, it is one that is very hard to argue against. With all due respect, Senator Scullion, points for trying, but you have to define ‘community concern’ for us. When you talk about community concern, can the department advise you, or the government explain to us, what is meant by that? Is this based on research? Is it based on polling? Is it based on front page articles? Is it letters to your office from constituents? I don’t know—white goods manufacturers? Who is complaining? Who is concerned? Are they concerned for valid reasons, or is it because there is this sense that people have allegedly misused or abused this payment? Some of the stories that I was reading related to families misusing the payment.

I am not meaning to be facetious; I am not suggesting that this is a light-hearted matter. We are talking about taxpayer dollars; we are talking about, in this particular case, those people who may be in circumstances that require additional support and financial assistance. That is to be determined by the qualified social worker in much the same way—and I am sure Senator Siewert or Senator Bartlett can explain this better than I can, given their social-worker backgrounds and understandings—that the same people would make comparable recommendations in other circumstances when it comes to payment of emergency relief: Centrelink, social security payments et cetera. I want to know what the community concern is and, in doing so, I am wondering if the minister wants to elaborate on his answer because I cannot see an argument for this particular amendment to fail. It seems a very good compromise and one that acknowledges that there may be exceptions. It even acknowledges that the government may be right—certainly the government has got its previous changes through—and then says, ‘But hang on, there may be some cases that deserve this acknowledgement or this change or this exception.’ I do not understand why the government will not consider this; I really don’t.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the first aspect of the question from Senator Stott Despoja, I understand the baby bonus came in about July 2004, or the maternity payment as it was called then. Since then, not as a minister but as an individual, I listened carefully to my electorate of the Northern Territory. Pretty much every time this was debated, young people—and other vulnerable demographics, but particularly young people—were identified. Certainly the group I was hearing about was those under 18. I know the senator comes from a very different part of the world in some senses—

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What, South Australia?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

indeed—but much of the demographic in my electorate is also represented in hers. All I can say is that I am surprised that she has little knowledge of the wider debate and the, I thought, quite passionate issue at the time about the vulnerability of people receiving a lump sum payment. It is as a consequence of that that we have made these decisions, and these were well reported in the media. As I said, they reflect public concerns and they were well reported in the media.

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is my last comment, Madam Temporary Chairman. I obviously appreciate that the minister has to do what the minister has to do; but, as to not understanding the demographics of the debate: bring it on. If you want the debate, I will have it. I am quite happy to ask you, for example, to outline, without getting advice or looking at your notes, some of the birthrates in the 15- to 19-year-old age group or the 18-year-old age group specifically. You think I am not aware of the debate; you should know that since 2002 there have been very few legislators amongst the Democrats who have not spent their time looking forensically at the demographics, the issues, the community debate and the research. When it comes to paid maternity leave, maternity payments, baby bonus 1, baby bonus 2—you name it—bring it on, because I am happy to have that debate.

I say that through you, Madam Temporary Chairman, to Senator Scullion, and I think he knows it. Maybe even this week we will have an opportunity with the launch of a new paid maternity leave campaign, which will bring up some of the new debates about demographics, statistics and community issues. I am ready. But in the meantime, on behalf of the Democrats, I would like to indicate our very strong support for this amendment. I look forward to facing off, so to speak, with Senator Scullion. I am not going to get into the South Australia versus Northern Territory debate. That would be to go off on a tangent.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to ask a question of the minister. It comes directly off the Family Assistance Office website. The page ‘Maternity Payment for Teenagers’ from the website says:

From 1 January 2007 until 1 July 2007, young people aged 17 years or under—

and I know it is now 18—

who apply for Maternity Payment will be paid in 13 fortnightly instalments unless special circumstances exist to warrant the payment of a lump sum.

So this is actually current government policy. I am wondering what has changed between that decision being made and now. Why has the government’s policy changed?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that as of 1 January we changed the guidelines. Now there is an opportunity to bring the legislation in line with the guidelines.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can you confirm that it was government policy that exceptional circumstances could be put to warrant the payment of a lump sum? Is says it on the website.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you need a bit of time, Minister?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, I wonder if I can get the question from the senator again.

The Temporary Chairman:

Senator Siewert, could you repeat that question.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could you confirm what the government’s policy was? It says it on the website. This is a direct printout—I printed it out this morning. It says:

... 13 fortnightly instalments unless special circumstances exist to warrant the payment of a lump sum.

Can the minister confirm if that was government policy up until now?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am informed that, because of the lead-up time to the legislation, we had to manage this issue by guidelines because there was not any legislation provided at the time. As you have seen on the website, we have provided guidelines. They guided the decisions at the time. We have since then decided to mandate that those people under 18 years of age are not able to be provided with a lump sum payment.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So it was the government policy, up until now, under exceptional circumstances to pay lump sums.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that, because of the legislative time frames that we had around this, we had to operate this particular provision under guidelines. I am informed that the website you are looking at simply reflected the guidelines at the time. As I have said, we are now moving to a process where the guidelines, which reflected some discretion in those matters, will be removed and simply supplanted by the legislation that we are hoping to pass today.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I am having a groundhog day. This is exactly what was happening during estimates the other day when I was asking a question! I accept now that they are guidelines, not policy—but that is not what I was asking. I am asking whether lump sum payments are allowed in exceptional circumstances, or if they are not now but have been. I will ask another question while I am on my feet: under these guidelines that have been operating from the beginning of January, how many people have used the guidelines under special circumstances to request a lump sum payment?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First of all, by way of clarification, the minister, Mal Brough, made it very clear at the time that the guidelines would operate until such time as the legislation that we are putting forward today made some clarification—because we needed some sort of framework between the time of his announcement and now. The intention was, as he announced then, that the guidelines would only apply until we made those changes.

Regarding the details, I understand that between the beginning of February and early April this year, following implementation of the changed delivery arrangements, 94 per cent of baby bonus claimants aged under 18 years were paid by instalment. In 2005-06 only 16 per cent of under 18-year-old bonus claimants were paid by instalment. So, from February to early April this year, six per cent were paid by lump sum.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is February to April a two-month or a three-month period? I am not trying to be pedantic.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is between the beginning of February and, it says in my notes, to early April.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In that two-month period, which is the only period we have got to go by because it was the only period during which the new guidelines were operating where the decision was made that people would be paid in periodic payments, it was six per cent. Is it possible to get that in numbers of people who actually had an exceptional circumstance where they required a lump sum payment? That is my understanding of what you have just said.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I think you can hold that answer until after the suspension.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The committee is considering the Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment (Child Support Reform Consolidation and Other Measures) Bill 2007 and amendment (5) moved by Senator Siewert. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Chair, just before we suspended for the dinner break, Senator Siewert asked me whether I had any further information about the six per cent. Senator Siewert, as I indicated to you, the 94 per cent—and I actually managed to do the maths for the remaining six per cent—related to a comparative analysis between those people under 18-years of age who were paid by instalment from February to April and the 16 per cent who were paid by instalments from 2005-06. So it is 16 per cent against 94 per cent. My notional six per cent is probably accurate, but I do not have a further breakdown of that. I am not sure whether you require that in terms of family violence or any of those sorts of things, which is what I thought might be of interest to you. All I have to hand is that that was in the context of a differential between 2005-06 and now. A very small number of people received the instalment then against the 94 per cent who are receiving it now. As you can understand from the legislation, it will soon be 100 per cent.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also did the maths. I presume that the six per cent refers to people who had applied for a lump sum payment under the new guidelines. Is that correct? It sounds as though you do not have any further advice on the six per cent. But surely that six per cent relates to those people who applied for a lump sum payment, because that is the new procedure under the guidelines.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that the six per cent relates to that group of people who were paid by lump sum where the discretion was applied.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is what I understood. I am clear on that. I presume that, therefore, they had to apply for it, because that is procedure under the new guidelines. On the website, it says that people ‘aged 17 years or under will be referred to Centrelink social workers to discuss possible support’ et cetera. I presume that refers to those people who applied under special circumstances for a lump sum payment. What I am asking is: why did they apply for a lump sum payment? I presume that Centrelink has kept a record of those details.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not advised at this time of any level of detail. As I said, the statistics—and we have all done the maths—relate to the differential between those applicants in 2005-06 and current applicants. The data was not provided in any way to try to illuminate the details of the circumstances that people found themselves in.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is the very point here. The Greens are moving these amendments because circumstances do arise. In this case, it concerns six per cent of people. Do you have figures for the number of people that that six per cent represents? Six per cent of those people who were receiving maternity payments in February and March found themselves in a circumstance in which they needed a lump sum payment. I would have thought that, because they would have had to apply for it, there would be some notion as to why they were applying for the lump sum. It relates directly to this amendment; it is the very issue that we are talking about. There are exceptional or special circumstances which the government in the past has recognised in its guidelines and now it is closing the opportunity for people to receive a lump sum payment. It looks as though the government has not done any analysis. In the nearly six months in which these guidelines have applied, the government has not done any analysis of the reasons why people apply for lump sum payments in special circumstances. The government has changed its mind. It has allowed for special circumstances, but now it has changed its mind and says: ‘No, you’re not going to have provision for special circumstances in the new legislation.’

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for so accurately answering her question. That is in fact the case: we have changed our mind. We had a provision whereby anyone could receive a lump sum payment. We decided to amend that. For those people under 18, we decided that there were no circumstances in which that provision could be extended through a qualified social worker or otherwise. In the previous guidelines, the only circumstance that existed was one where a social worker decided that a person under 18 was sufficiently vulnerable and should receive instalments rather than a lump sum payment. But the government policy, which was announced by Minister Brough on 15 November 2006, was that all claimants under the age of 18 were to be paid by instalments.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do feel as though I am in Groundhog Day. I actually read to you what was on the website about special circumstances. The government has changed its mind twice. I acknowledge that currently on the website the provision has been reversed. Prior to that, a person could get a lump sum payment and someone who was considered vulnerable would get periodic payments. The minister made the announcement in November, and the information on the website has changed since then. I have a printout of it here. As I said, I printed it this morning. The printout says that there will be fortnightly payments, except under special circumstances where a lump sum payment could be made.

You just told me, in answer to a question, that from February to April six per cent of those people asked for a lump sum payment. That is where you changed your policy. Now you have changed it again, and I am asking why you have done so when at least six per cent of people found it necessary to apply for special circumstances for a lump sum payment? That is why it relates to my amendment, because when you brought in these guidelines to implement the government’s policy, you left it so that there could be special circumstances. Six per cent of the people applied for a lump sum payment and obviously were given it. So there were enough circumstances in those two months that it was acknowledged that people should get a lump sum payment.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think Senator Siewert is reading too much into the statistics. At no time have I said the six per cent reflected somebody applying for some sort of change in circumstances. As I said, these statistics were there simply in a broad sense to supply a differential between 2005 and 2006, and January to April. But the statistics do not go towards whether these were people who particularly applied under those guidelines. These are fairly raw indications of the change we have had in those people who were receiving an instalment against those receiving a one-off payment. As I said, I think Senator Siewert is reading far more into the statistics. The statistics do not provide that there was any application made by somebody who wished to have a change of their circumstances.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So you are telling me that the agencies have not been applying the guidelines. Ninety-four per cent of people got their payments fortnightly. How else would they have got the six per cent? How else would they have got theirs? I appreciate the statistics show that the policy of requiring fortnightly payments has been successful. You have moved the bulk of people onto fortnightly payments. What about the six per cent? That is the policy that was being applied and the guidelines that were being applied; I am asking: have you not been applying them? Surely you have gathered the information about whether people have actually been applying under special circumstances for lump sum payments.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I think you are reading too much into the statistics. All we are saying in that particular period of time, as you have amplified, is that there may have been some discretion. As I have said, the information before us now does not move towards any way under which the discretion may have been particularly applied or otherwise. It is simply that there is six per cent of people out there over that period of time that did not receive the complete one-off payment. But, as I have reiterated, it does not provide us with any further information about applications, why people were rejected or how that discretion was used in any other way. It is not for me, in this place, at this time, to consider what information may have been provided by another agency at some other time. All I can say is that, as I have indicated before, following the implementation of the changed delivery arrangements, 94 per cent of baby bonus claimants under 18 years of age were paid by instalments and 16 per cent of under 18 year-old claimants were paid by instalments in 2005-06. It is there really only to show that there has been a clear change in terms of the delivery arrangements, and it reflects our intent of this legislation.

Question negatived.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:

(6)    Schedule 11, page 165 (after line 5), before item 1, insert:

1A  Subsection 5(18) (and the heading)

Repeal the heading and the subsection, substitute:

Principal carer—a child may have more than one principal carer

      (18)    If:

             (a)    a court orders that more than one parent is to have a significant proportion of responsibility for the care of a child; and

             (b)    the difference in percentage of responsibility for the care of a child between the two parents is 12% or less;

both parents must be treated for all purposes of this Act as a principal carer for the child.

1B  After subsection 5(19)

Insert:

   (19A)    Notwithstanding subsection (19), if a court orders that more than one parent has a significant proportion of responsibility for the care of a child and the difference in percentage of responsibility for the care of a child between the two parents is 12% or less, the Secretary must make a determination that each parent the subject of the court order is the principal carer of the child.

Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

The effect of the amendment would be to allow an increase in the number of claimants eligible to be the principal carer of a child and therefore eligible to receive payments for the care of a child. These payments would be met from the appropriation from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

This increase in the number of claimants eligible to receive payments would have the effect of increasing expenditure from the standing appropriation, and the amendments are therefore presented as requests.

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

The Senate has long accepted that an amendment should take the form of a request if it would have the effect of increasing expenditure under a standing appropriation. This request is therefore in accordance with the precedents of the Senate.

These are the same amendments that I moved last time we had FaCSIA legislation in this place, and I will continue to do it until the government does something about principal carers. To articulate the argument, which I have done on a number of occasions in this place, the manifestly unfair nature of the legislation now impacts on people who are sharing parenting. Family law went through this place last year and required equal shared parenting. Welfare to Work legislation went through and had, as part of its core, the notion of a principal carer. The principal carer could only be one parent, and yet we have a piece of legislation that has established the concept of equal shared parenting. But if both parents unfortunately happen to be on income support, only one of those parents can be a principal carer. Therefore, if the children are living in two households, each with 50 per cent care—50 per cent with dad one week and 50 per cent with mum another week—only one of those parents will be able to be identified as principal carer and receive the benefits that go with that. Therefore, for one week a child is living in a household that has the benefits of the parent being a principal carer, and that parent has reduced work participation and can access other benefits such as PBS and other concessions. The next week the child goes to the house of the other parent who is not the principal carer. That person does not receive those benefits and, therefore, has increased Jobsearch requirements, although they are still looking after the child and they do not receive the concessions. How can this conceivably be considered fair? We have one piece of legislation that says parents are equally sharing parenting and they are equal under the law, and another that says that they are not.

The last time we discussed this, the government undertook to look into it. When I asked questions during estimates, guess what—no action was taken. They could not answer any of my questions. At the moment this probably impacts on a small section of our community. I acknowledge that. But as the family law amendments are implemented more and more, we are going to see more parents in this position.

I think last time we discussed this, Senator Abetz said that there were only a couple of hundred people who were affected. There will be more in the future. Even if there are not more in the future, there are 200 families that are being unfairly treated. It is not as if the government did not know that this was happening, because it has been raised on a number of occasions and they have not acted to fix it. So we are trying to fix the legislation and I will keep on trying to do it until amendments are made or until the government acts to remediate this problem. So I move our amendments to implement a fair process for principal carers.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition (Social and Community Affairs)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to support, in principle, the issues that Senator Siewert has just raised. This is a policy conundrum—but, more than that, it is policy incoherence—that has frustrated her and prompted her to move this amendment. We understand that this amendment takes the form of a request to the House to amend the Social Security Act to redefine who is a principal carer so that a child may have more than one carer—in circumstances where a court orders that more than one parent has a significant proportion of responsibility for the care of the child, and the difference in parental responsibility is 12 per cent or less—and ensures in these circumstances that the secretary must also make a determination that each parent who meets these criteria is the principal carer of the child for the purposes of the social security law.

As I said, Labor are very sympathetic to the point that Senator Siewert is making and certainly supports the spirit of this request in relation to the activity requirements of non-principal carer parents who have a significant proportion of responsibility for the care of their child. However, on this occasion, although we have supported Senator Siewert in the past, we are not in a position to support this amendment request because—and I want to make this very clear to Senator Siewert in particular—Labor are currently, in our own policy process, looking at the best ways to address the problems of this complicated intersection between the Welfare to Work, child support and family support laws. At this stage we are not convinced that the proposal that Senator Siewert is suggesting is the most workable solution. So at this stage we will not be supporting the request for amendment.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert has put on the record in a number of forums her concerns in regard to this matter and I understand she raised this issue as an amendment to the employment and workplace relations legislation. As a result of the earlier proposed amendments, and the discussions and debate that surrounded them, this government, as Senator Siewert has indicated, is currently considering a range of options prior to making a final decision. To ensure that this matter is progressed I have asked Minister Brough to raise the matter again with Minister Hockey.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I ask whether any action has been taken following up on the last discussion we had in this place, and how long do you think that will take?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When I have asked the question about the timing I have been advised that it is under current consideration. I am not aware of the time earlier this year at which the amendment to the employment and workplace relations legislation was actually made, but I do know that it is under current consideration. As soon as the decision is made, no doubt there will be some action in this place.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does that mean that the government does acknowledge that there is an issue here?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I have just stated, we recognise that an amendment was put forward when Senator Siewert first raised this issue in the context of the employment and workplace relations legislation earlier this year. As a result of the proposed amendment, the government is currently considering a range of options prior to making a final decision. I suspect that the senator was aware of the government’s position and that they were working on the issue. The issue is under current consideration.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At estimates, when I asked this question I was not told about this. The reason I have raised it again is that I was not informed that the government was taking this issue seriously, that it was undertaking a review, or that there had had been significant progress. You were not able to discuss it in more detail. There were some flippant answers given and no commitment at all that there was a lot of further work being done on this particular amendment. In the past when I raised these issues there was no commitment given to undertake this. I was not reassured during the estimates process. I was reassured during the discussion that we previously had in this place; hence my disappointment during estimates when I did not get a satisfactory answer to the questions I was asking. If the situation has changed between then and now, I am pleased, but I would like a time frame within which we can expect some action.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All I can reiterate is that, first of all, the estimates process Senator Siewert is referring to is the province of another minister, unrelated to our discussions here today. But, as I have said, I am informed that the government is currently considering a range of options prior to making a final decision.

Question put:

That the request (Senator Siewert’s) be agreed to.