Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. The memorandum was circulated in the chamber earlier today. I move government amendment (1) on sheet AE217:

(1)   Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3), omit the table item.

We also oppose schedule 4 in the following terms:

(2)   Schedule 4, page 39 (line 1) to page 50 (line 11), to be opposed.

The government is committed to a targeted and efficient social security system. We remain committed to streamlining the process of notifying Centrelink when payments are made by compensation payers and insurers. This initiative is contained in schedule 4 of the bill in its current form.

The government has worked constructively with the insurance sector to ensure that the initiative can be implemented as intended. Schedule 4 will be withdrawn from the bill to allow further consultation and discussions with the insurance sector to finalise some outstanding issues. We remain committed to the initiative. Once implemented, it will help ensure people are paid their correct Centrelink entitlements and avoid debt and other payments.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that government amendment (1) on sheet AE217 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The question now is that schedule 4 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

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

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7099 together:

(1)   Schedule 2, item 3, page 27 (lines 25 to 27), omit subparagraph 61A(1)(b)(iii).

(2)   Schedule 2, item 3, page 28 (lines 30 to 32), omit subparagraph 61A(2)(b)(iii).

I will not speak for very long on these amendments because I articulated in my speech in the second reading debate our concerns about schedule 2. We believe that it focuses unfairly on just those on income support, in that it attempts to say that only those families on income support need to be or should be required to have mandatory health checks in order to access family tax benefit part A supplement, and we believe that this should be extended to all families who receive that particular supplement.

I did listen to the minister's second reading summing up comments and I would point out that development delays and various other conditions, as we talked about earlier, such as hearing and vision, do occur in children other than just those children who are from families on income support. We believe that, to make this fair, this amendment should apply to all Australian families who receive that particular supplement. I commend the amendments to the chamber.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

From the government's perspective, the amendments are not acceptable. The new requirement will start on 1 July this year and will help ensure that 92,000 children each year get a preschool health assessment. The government's measure focuses on income support families because there is clear evidence not only that children from low-income families begin school less well prepared but also that that early gap persists and even widens as children progress through school if not addressed early. For example, a 2010 review of the research evidence by the Australian Medical Association concluded that:

Poor families also may have inadequate or limited access to community resources that promote and support children’s development and school readiness. Poor children are at greater risk than those from higher income families for a range of problems, including detrimental effects on IQ, poor academic achievement, poor socio-emotional functioning, developmental delays, behavioural problems, poor nutrition, low birth weight, and respiratory disease.

Data from The Longitudinal Study of Australian Childrenalso showsthat children from financially disadvantaged families have a lower readiness for school and are at greater risk of development delay than those from higher-income families. Further, there is evidence that socioeconomic background can be a factor in whether children are likely to access health services.

The evidence supports the government's moves to use the family tax benefit part A supplement to encourage these families to make sure they get their child to do a health check provided free by the states and territories and the Commonwealth through the MBS.

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

Minister, I understand that there are many families in this country who would be described as the working poor who are not on income support but would still be classed as lower socioeconomic. If the argument is that you are only targeting poor families, it may come as a surprise to some in government but there are many families in this country who are working poor, who are not on income support, who should also, under your definition, benefit from these measures. How many families who have low incomes and who are not on income support does the government think could benefit from compulsory child health checks—which is what this measure requires?

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In terms of all policies there needs to be a targeting to need and also a targeting in relation to the resources we have at our disposal. The government has done indicative costings of the Greens' amendments, and it would cost double to implement them. What the government is attempting to do here is to target the policy to areas of greatest need, with the backing of evidence through the research I have mentioned.

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

For a start, I always find the governments costings quite entertaining. I would like an explanation as to why it would double the cost. It is my understanding that families can access MBS child health checks. There is the requirement for the provision of additional health checks. I am wondering where that data is coming from when, as I understand it, families can access MBS child health checks. I do understand the issue around various states having different requirements and different health checks, but, firstly, why will it cost double; and, secondly, given your explanation of why they are so important, is that investment for additional families not worth while, given the importance of child health checks?

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Regarding the cost, I am advised that the cost is in relation to Centrelink. If there are more families, obviously the cost required from Centrelink is greater. As I have said, the indicative costing of your amendment is that it would be double. Could you repeat the second part of your question.

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

My question was, given that I accepted your costings, is that not a worthwhile investment, given the importance, as you have articulated, of child health checks? Is it not a worthwhile investment to extend these requirements for child health checks to all Australian families receiving the supplement?

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given the funding available, we believe it is best targeted at those families on the very lowest incomes. That is where the research has backed the policy proposal.

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

I wonder whether the government has thought about some of its other compulsory requirements such as income management and the work that has been done, particularly, for example, by the Indigenous Doctors Association, which has looked at the psychological impacts of discriminatory compulsory requirements. I wonder whether the government has looked at whether that is, in fact, going to have an impact on some families and whether some families will say, 'We're not going to do this because you're requiring this of me, as someone on income support, because (a) you're implying that I cannot look after my child and (b) there is the impact it has had by being required to do something in the same way that income management has had an impact on a number of people.' You are requiring them to do something they do not agree with.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, I understand your passion around the issues of income management, but, in terms of the system that we have in place, there are always requirements on people who receive benefits. In terms of this policy, as I said earlier, we are making sure that 92,000 children get these checks and these assessments, which I think is a very good result. In terms of the issues around income management, I do not think that forms part of this debate.

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

Minister, I was drawing on the analogy about discriminatory approaches that have a negative impact on people. This is my final question because I realise that time is short. It is my understanding of the requirements for child health checks in the Northern Territory that a lot of the conditions have not been followed up. There has not been a significant improvement in child health for various reasons. Developmental delays are identified. Is the funding in place for the 92,000 that you say will be assessed under this particular provision? Will there be support to deal with any issues that are identified, given that we have seen some significant problems with child health checks in the Northern Territory?

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, you have raised a serious issue, and obviously we want to improve the effectiveness of all the policies that we have in place and certainly around this policy, but there are a range of other programs and positions that the government has undertaken to try and ensure that we improve the effectiveness of the program and the assessments.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Siewert be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.