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

I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 7104:

(1)   Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit the table item.

This amendment proposes to remove changes to the disability support pension. As I articulated in my second reading contribution, the Greens have great concerns with the changes. We believe they will have very significant unintended consequences and that they should be excluded. More time needs to be put into developing a much more sensitive approach to helping people with a disability. I could be generous and give the government credit for thinking this is the way in which you help people with a disability. In that case, I urge them to reconsider their amendments, because they will have very significant unintended consequences.

But I think what the government is about here is saving money. I do not believe this is the way to do it. Research clearly shows that punitive approaches do not work. The government has recognised that there are barriers to people with disabilities finding work, and it has made significant changes in addressing taper rates and introducing disability brokers. These are good steps. On the one hand the government is making positive moves in addressing barriers to employment for someone living with a disability. But these amendments are not a good step. The government has not worked out the detail. It is rushing them through in order to save nearly $50 million. I do not think these measures are appropriate. Even if the government brought them in at the end of the year, I do not think they are the way to go. This is a particularly bad time and this is a particularly bad way of doing things.

The government are rushing these changes through. They have not completed the impairment table. They do not know—and they admitted this; I had a bit of a to and fro with the department over this—what role the providers will have. They are still making it up, quite frankly, as they go along. They should withdraw these measures. They should at least start them when they said they were going to—although, as I said, I do not agree with the changes; but at least a delay would maybe blunt some of the most dramatic of their potentially unintended consequences.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to indicate that the opposition will not be supporting the Greens amendment. As I indicated in my remarks and as Senator Boyce did in hers, we will nevertheless be watching very closely how this particular measure works in practice. It is something that I am sure we will be examining closely at Senate estimates.

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

I thank Senator Siewert for accepting that our intent is to try to ensure that Australians can access employment. This is about trying to ensure that people with a disability get the support they need to get a job.

I would also add, Senator Siewert, that the government welcomes the Senate com­mittee's recommendation to establish an advisory committee of community organisa­tions to consult on the implementation of the measure. The government will move on this very quickly to ensure it is established and it will also involve the employment service providers.

I would also note, as a former employ­ment participation minister, that we have done a great deal to expand our disability employment service, including the uncapping. So a great deal of work has been going on at the employment end as well to ensure that the disability employment service meets the needs of job seekers. Also, the Job Service Australia model has been expanded and improved in terms of stream 3 and stream 4 regarding outcome payments.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Siewert's) be agreed to.

The committee divided. [17:20]

(The Temporary Chairman—Senator Mark Bishop)

Question negatived.

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

The Greens oppose schedule 3 in the following terms:

(4) Schedule 3, page 6 (line 1) to page 8 (line 31), Schedule TO BE OPPOSED.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The question is that schedule 3 stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

The Greens oppose schedule 2 in the following terms:

(2)   Schedule 2, item 2, page 5 (lines 9 to 15), item TO BE OPPOSED.

This relates to the freezing of the indexation of family tax benefit A and B. As I articulated in my speech during the second reading debate, we do not believe this is a good measure in that it focuses disproportionately on the members of our community on the lowest income, both those on low wages and those on income support. I acknowledge that the more well off Australians will not really notice it, but low-income families will notice it because every single penny counts for people on a low income. As I said in my speech, this money is often used to meet the lump-sum expenses that people have been accumulating through the year or when they need to replace a piece of equipment, pay bonds and things like that. I commend the amendment to the Senate.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that the opposition will not be supporting the Greens amendment. While we have great sympathy with the intent and objective of the Greens amend­ment, the opposition has to deal with the budget situation as it is. The government have put the budget into deficit. They have done so with great consistency. They have racked up three budget deficits and I am sure they are on track for a fourth. They are nothing if not consistent. We have to recognise the fiscal situation that the government has placed the nation in. For that reason, it is with great reluctance that we adopt this course of action.

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

We also have to reject the amendment by the Greens. I start by rejecting everything that Senator Fifield said in relation to our economic manage­ment. We could debate that all day, Senator Fifield, and I note you constantly forget about the global financial crisis, but we will leave that for another day.

This measure delivers savings to the budget of $803.2 million over the forward estimates and is part of the government's reforms to make the family payment system sustainable into the future. I talked about a number of measures that the government has already taken. As a result of the change, the forgone increases in 2011-12 would be: for family tax benefit part A, $18 per child for the year, which is equivalent to 35c a week; and, for family tax benefit part B, $11 per child for the year, which is equivalent to 21c a week. The fortnightly family payments that families rely on week to week will continue to be indexed.

Senator Siewert raised concerns about very low income families. I can advise the Senate that the impact on the maximum rate for a low-income single parent with two young children who receives both family tax benefit part A and part B will be $47 for the year 2011-12. As I previously noted, fortnightly family tax benefit payments will continue to rise with normal indexation. For this family, the total family tax benefit part A and B will increase by $12.32 a fortnight, or $321.20 a year, on 1 July 2011. That means that this family will still receive at least around $321 more in their family payments next year, depending on the age of their children. The increase could be higher.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The question is that schedule 2 stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

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

I move Greens amendment (3) on sheet 7104:

(3)   Schedule 2, item 2, page 5 (line 15) after “1 July 2013”, add “except in relation to a FTB recipient who is receiving a social security pension, a social security benefit, service pension or income support supplement”.

Senator Fifield, this one will not cost as much, so can I persuade you? As I said earlier, this particular measure will impact hardest. I make my point again: every cent counts for low-income families. This measure specifically exempts the freezing of the indexation in relation to FTB recipients who are in receipt of a social security pension, a social security benefit, a service pension or an income support supplement. In other words, it exempts those on a very low income.

Before the government use the argument that this will be hard to implement because of administration, I remind the government that they introduced the measure that we debated just yesterday on child health checks that require FTB supplement payments to be linked to a health check. So there will be a system in place that traces those particular people. You could use the same system to make sure you do not freeze indexation of the supplement for people on income support or those on a very low income, because that will ensure that they get the indexation to help them a little more. I commend the amendment to the Senate.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert's points are very well made, but if we had been in government we would have a different fiscal starting point today. We would have managed the budget in the previous years very differently. This government seems to have the worst luck of any government I have known. Every year there is always some bad luck. I do not accept the government's justification for why the budget is in the state that it is in, but nevertheless we have to accept the current state of the budget as a reality to be dealt with. Again, reluctantly, we indicate that we will not be supporting the Greens amendment.

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

This amendment would add significantly to the complexity of the system and would have substantial cost implications. The proposed amendment would have the effect of creating two supplement payment amounts: one for those on income support and another for those not on income support. I am advised that Senator Siewert raised this proposal along these lines during the inquiry hearings into the bill last week and Centrelink advised that there would obviously be a level of complexity with trying to make that differentiation because the limits would be currently applied across all. We would have to consider that and then advise the department, if that were the policy angle taken, and my initial reaction would be that that would be pretty tricky. Although a significant proportion of families receiving FTB are on income support, there are also many low-income families who do not receive income support. This amendment would therefore create inequities between low-income families receiving income support and those not in the income support system.

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

I cannot let that one go. I was actually making those arguments around the child health checks just yesterday. I was making the point that you are applying those requirements for the bill that we dealt with yesterday, the further election commitments bill. The child health checks were being linked to those on income support and not other families—but all Australian families—and particularly other groups of families. So you can do it for that bill but you cannot do it for this one?

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

There is a difference here. This is with regard to a payment. Again, we do also have Centrelink comments concerning the complexity, and that is what we are basing this on.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.