Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Senator Evans. How many parents will receive less childcare benefit from 1 July 2009 as a result of the Rudd government’s expanded definition of income? And I am not referring to the family tax benefit.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Boswell for his question and our continuing discussion on these issues. I might suggest, in responding, Mr President, that I offer Senator Boswell a briefing on these matters, because I think the level of complexity and detail is hard to get on top of not only regarding the changes that are affecting the charitable sector as a result of the previous government’s 2006 budget changes but also regarding the changes that we have introduced as part of our budget this year and the confusion in the minds of the public about how the two interact.

I am able to advise the Senate that the changes that the Rudd Labor government introduced as part of the budget will focus on the salary sacrifice into superannuation issue. The changes are designed to bring that measure into line with conditions that apply to pensioners and the self-employed. This initiative will also help ensure that people cannot reduce or avoid their child support obligations.

As I have said to the Senate and to you, Senator Boswell, it is not the purpose of the social security system to provide further incentives, over and above those provided by the tax system, to make voluntary contributions to superannuation. Our view is that people ought not to be able to get more benefits, be they family tax benefits and/or childcare benefits, than they would otherwise be entitled to and that, by using the salary sacrifice into superannuation, they should not be advantaged over other citizens. In terms of the FTB, I think I told you yesterday that we anticipated about 3½ per cent of families receiving family tax benefit will be affected.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. This is all very interesting, Senator Evans, but I asked you a specific question. There are many people who are concerned about this. They want to know what benefits they are going to lose under the childcare benefit from July 2009. I am not interested in family tax benefit A or B. I am asking you a specific question: how many parents are going to lose benefits under the childcare benefit from July 2009?

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Senator Boswell, I cannot direct the minister as to how he should answer the question or whether he should be as specific, and I think he is in order.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. I am trying to be helpful to Senator Boswell. I know he has—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not take the interjection. I am trying to be helpful and I know that Senator Boswell is interested in the issue.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You’re not being helpful. You are answering a different question.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, you are not being helpful by interrupting. You know nothing about it—as is the case with most things.

Kay Patterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are not being helpful.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I can only be helpful if I can be. If I cannot get a word in, then I cannot—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, you poor little petal!

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Macdonald! Ignore the interjections, Senator Evans, and respond to the question.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, the initiative is designed to deliver savings in the FaHCSIA budget—in the families, housing, community services and Indigenous affairs area. We think it will save about $250 million over four years. The savings, I am advised, Senator Boswell, are almost entirely in the family tax benefit payments area.

I do not have details on the exact impacts in the childcare area. I am happy to take that part of your question on notice and see if I can get you better information. But I am advised that the majority of the savings and, if you like, the impacts, are in the family tax benefit area. As I said, that applies to about 3½ per cent of families who are currently receiving family tax benefit. It is a measure designed to make sure there is equal treatment of those people who are currently salary sacrificing into super and are accessing benefits that people on the same income levels would not be entitled to. I have indicated to Senator Boswell that I am happy to organise through the minister a briefing for him on the details. (Time expired)

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I certainly will take the minister up on that offer. I do point out, Minister, that I have asked these questions twice in estimates, and on at least one occasion you were there. I again asked the question of you yesterday and the shadow minister, Mr Abbott, has also asked the question. When is the Rudd government going to come clean on how much money they are taking away from working families? You have to tell us specifically.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, that was not the question that Senator Boswell asked me yesterday. He asked me a separate question, which I tried to assist him with. But I do point out to him that these changes come in on 1 July 2009. There is no immediate impact on families. I am happy to brief Senator Boswell and any other senators on the details. As I told him, the major impacts are on family tax benefit B. We stand by the changes because, essentially, we do not think you ought to be able to get access to more social security benefits as a result of salary sacrificing into superannuation. We do not think that is equitable. We think people ought to be treated the same as pensioners and the self-employed and ought to be entitled to the benefits based on their income, not on the basis of some arrangement they have of salary sacrificing into super.

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

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Evans. Can the minister inform the Senate of implications on the budget if budget bills are not passed by the Senate before the start of the next financial year?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Hogg for the question because it is a very important issue confronting this government and confronting the Australian people. The budget delivered by the Rudd Labor government delivers on our election commitments. It specifically delivers on the commitments we gave during the election campaign. It delivers the tax cuts we promised from 1 July. It delivers the childcare support and it delivers the education support that we promised the Australian electorate. We are trying to deliver on those promises, and we are also trying to deliver on our commitment to be fiscally conservative. We seek to maintain a budget surplus of $22 billion—a budget surplus that will help to keep downward pressure on interest rates and keep downward pressure on inflation. These are very important commitments that we made. We have been frustrated in that effort by the refusal of the opposition to cooperate in allowing us to deliver that budget. In particular, the revenue measures that underpin the surplus are being denied to us—they are being denied to the government.

Quite frankly, it is economic vandalism, because if we do not get these measures by 1 July, Australian taxpayers will be $280 million out of pocket—$280 million out of pocket because of their obstructionism. It is not just because they oppose the measures. If they had a principal issue involved, if they opposed them, if they had the courage of their convictions, you could say, ‘Well, I mightn’t agree with it, but at least it’s their view.’ But no, there is no position from the opposition; their position is delay, defer—‘We can’t make a decision; we are so internally divided as a party, as a coalition, that we put off any decision.’ They have had six weeks to come to a decision and their decision is no decision. Their decision is to defer and delay. And now we understand that in order to consider a small change in a tax measure, like the luxury car tax or the condensate measure, they need 3½ months to think about it—not six weeks, that is not good enough; they need 3½ months, and in that 3½ months $280 million will be lost to Australian taxpayers. Taxpayers will be $280 million out of pocket because the opposition cannot make a decision. They make it clear that they are not opposing these measures. They have not decided to oppose them; they have decided to defer them.

They are not only frustrating the budget bills, but they are frustrating our election commitments and they are even frustrating their election commitments—the commitment to same-sex relationships and equal treatment under superannuation, a commitment by the Labor government to deliver equal treatment to same-sex couples in terms of their superannuation. It was our election commitment. We are trying to deliver on it. Do you know who else made a commitment to it? They made a commitment to it. But not only will they not deliver on our election commitment, they will not deliver on their election commitments. They will not deliver. They need 4½ months to consider whether they ought to deliver on their election commitments. That is how ridiculous that has become. Of course, they will not allow us to deliver on the election commitment to provide transparency in electoral donations. I urge the opposition to reconsider their position. I know their leader is so undermined that they cannot come to any decision in the party room which is not seen as a push against him. (Time expired)