Bills Digest no. 26,
2016–17
PDF version [597KB]
Michael Klapdor
Social Policy Section
18
October 2016
This Bills Digest updates earlier digests for the Social
Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and
Participation Measures) Bill 2015 and the Social
Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and
Participation Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2015.
Contents
History of the Bill
Purpose of the Bill
Background
Previous proposals and measures
passed
Budget Savings (Omnibus) Act 2016
changes
Savings to be directed towards the
Jobs for Families Child Care Package
Committee consideration
Senate Education and Employment
Legislation Committee
Senate Standing Committee for the
Scrutiny of Bills
Committee consideration of the
previous Bills
Social Services Legislation Amendment
(Family Payments Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill 2015
Social Services Legislation Amendment
(Family Payments Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill (No. 2)
2015
Policy position of non-government
parties/independents
Position of major interest groups
National Welfare Rights Network
Australian Council of Social Service
Australian Council of Trade Unions
Financial implications
Statement of Compatibility with Human
Rights
Parliamentary Joint Committee on
Human Rights
Key issues and provisions
Concluding comments
Date introduced: 1
September 2016
House: House of
Representatives
Portfolio: Social
Services
Commencement: Schedule
1 and Part 3 of Schedule 3 on 1 July 2018; Schedule 2 on 1 July 2017;
Part 1 of Schedule 3 on 1 July 2016; and Part 2 of Schedule 3 on
1 July 2017.
Links: The links to the Bill,
its Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech can be found on the
Bill’s home page, or through the Australian
Parliament website.
When Bills have been passed and have received Royal Assent,
they become Acts, which can be found at the Federal Register of Legislation
website.
All hyperlinks in this Bills Digest are correct as
at October 2016.
History of
the Bill
Similar measures
to those proposed in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments
Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill 2016 (the 2016 Bill) were
proposed in two previous Bills. These measures were first contained in the Social
Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and
Participation Measures) Bill 2015 (the No. 1 Bill).[1]
These measures were removed from the No. 1 Bill prior to it being passed by the
Parliament on 30 November 2015. The measures were then reintroduced, with some
small amendments, in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments
Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2015 (the No. 2
Bill) on 2 December 2015.[2]
The No. 2 Bill passed the House of Representatives 10 February 2016 and
was introduced to the Senate on 22 February 2016. The No. 2 Bill was not
debated in the Senate and lapsed at prorogation on 17 April 2016.
The only significant difference between the 2016 Bill and
the No. 2 Bill is that the commencement date for Schedule 2 has been pushed
back from 1 July 2016 (in the No. 2 Bill) to 1 July 2017 (in the 2016
Bill).
Purpose of
the Bill
The 2016 Bill amends the A New Tax System (Family
Assistance) Act 1999 (the FA Act), the A New Tax System (Family
Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 and the Social Security Act 1991
(the SS Act) to:
- from
1 July 2018, increase the fortnightly rate of Family Tax Benefit Part A (FTB-A)
by $10.08 and increase by $7.48 per fortnight the rate of Youth Allowance for
those aged under 18 and living at home, and the rates of Disability Support
Pension (DSP) paid to a single recipient aged under 18 who is not living away
from their parent’s home due to a medical condition (as well as some related
payment rates)
- from
1 July 2017:
- increase
the standard rate of Family Tax Benefit Part B (FTB-B) by $1000.10 per year for
families whose youngest child is aged under one
- reduce
the rate of FTB-B for single parents with a youngest child aged 13–16 to
$1000.10 per annum (from the 2015–16 rate of $2,784.95 per annum)—single
parents aged at least 60 years and grandparent or great-grandparent carers are
exempt from this measure and
- remove
FTB-B for single parents with a youngest child aged 17 or 18—single parents
aged at least 60 years and grandparent or great-grandparent carers are also
exempt from this measure and
- phase
out the FTB-A and FTB-B supplements by:
- reducing
the FTB-A supplement from the 2015–16 rate of $726.35 per child to $602.25 for
2016–17, to $302.95 for 2017–18 and removing the supplement from 1 July 2018
and
- reducing
the FTB-B supplement from the 2015–16 rate of $354.05 per family to $302.95 for
2016–17, to $153.30 for 2017–18 and removing the supplement from 1 July 2018.
Background
Background to these measures is provided in the Bills
Digest for the No. 1 Bill.[3]
Previous
proposals and measures passed
The No. 1 Bill, as amended and passed, removed FTB-B for
couple families whose youngest child was aged 13 years or above (with
grandparent and great-grandparent carers exempt). The No. 1 Bill had included
the measures proposed in the No. 2 Bill and the 2016 Bill but with a number of
important differences:
- single
parents aged 60 years or above were not exempt from the FTB-B rate reduction
measure, only grandparent carers
- grandparent
carer couple families with a youngest child aged 13–16 in receipt of FTB-B were
to have their maximum rate reduced to $1000.10 per annum and
- FTB-B
was to be removed for all family-types with a youngest child aged 17 or 18.
Budget
Savings (Omnibus) Act 2016 changes
As part of a deal between the Government and Opposition to
secure passage of the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016, an income limit of
$80,000 was placed on the FTB-A supplement commencing 1 July 2016.[4]
This means that only families with adjusted taxable income below $80,000 are
eligible to receive the FTB-A supplement.
The Government has stated that despite this new limit, it
will proceed with the proposal to phase out the supplements altogether via the
2016 Bill.[5]
It is unclear how the new limit will affect the fiscal impact of the phase-out
(given an estimated 380,000 families are no longer eligible for the
supplement).[6]
Another component of this deal was that the Government
would not proceed with the increase in FTB-B rates for families whose youngest
child is aged less than one year (one component of Schedule 2 of the 2016
Bill).[7]
This measure had been described as a new ‘baby bonus’.[8]
This will increase the expected savings from the 2016 Bill. The Parliamentary
Budget Office, costing an Australian Labor Party election policy, estimated
that not proceeding with the ‘baby bonus’ would save $372.0 million over the
forward estimates.[9]
Savings to
be directed towards the Jobs for Families Child Care Package
In the 2015–16 Budget, the Government announced a package of
child care reforms including a major overhaul of the fee assistance payment
system: the Jobs for Families Package. The Government linked additional funding
for the package with Family Tax Benefit (FTB) savings proposed in the 2014–15
Budget but stalled in the Senate.[10]
The measures first proposed in the No. 1 Bill, announced in
October 2015, replaced the 2014–15 FTB savings and were again linked with the
2015–16 Budget’s child care package.[11]
In introducing the 2016 Bill, the Minister for Social
Services stated that the Jobs for Families child care package would be funded
by the FTB savings in the 2016 Bill.[12]
The financial impact of the 2016 Bill, as announced, is estimated to be a
saving of $5.8 billion over the forward estimates.[13]
However, the new expenditure provided under the Jobs for Families Child Care Package
is expected to be $3.0 billion.[14]
This provides a net saving of $2.8 billion. The savings from these
particular FTB measures will be affected by the amendments in the Budget
Savings (Omnibus) Act 2016 and the decision by the Government to no longer
proceed with the new ‘baby bonus’ in Schedule 2 of the 2016 Bill (discussed
above).
Committee
consideration
Senate
Education and Employment Legislation Committee
The 2016 Bill, together with the Family Assistance
Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Bill 2016, was
referred to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee for
inquiry. The Committee tabled its report on 10 October 2016. Details of the
inquiry are from the inquiry homepage.[15]
The report of the Committee noted the inquiries into the No.
1 and No. 2 Bills by the Senate Community Affairs Committee and the key issues
held by stakeholders had been established by these inquiries.[16]
The Committee noted the concern from stakeholders over the coupling of the
savings measures in the 2016 Bill with the additional funding for the Jobs for
Families Child Care Package but found that this was justified.[17]
The Committee recommended both Bills be passed without amendment.[18]
Australian Labor Party (Labor) and Australian Greens
(Greens) Senators issued dissenting reports (discussed below in the ‘Policy
position of non-government parties/independents’ section).
Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills had
no comment on either the No. 2 Bill or the 2016 Bill.[19]
Committee
consideration of the previous Bills
The Senate Community Affairs Committee considered both the
No. 1 and the No. 2 Bills.
Social
Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and
Participation Measures) Bill 2015
In regards to the No. 1 Bill, the Committee noted that most
submitters and witnesses opposed the proposed changes in the Bill, and had
expressed concerns about the changes to FTB-B rates for vulnerable families
with children aged over 13 years, the phasing out of the FTB-A and FTB-B
supplements and the linking of FTB savings to the Jobs for Families child care
package.[20]
The Government-chaired Committee did not accept these concerns:
- in
regards to the changes to FTB-B rates, the Committee report stated:
The committee considers that these changes will provide an
incentive for parents to re-engage in the workforce, recognising that as
children grow older, parents have increased capacity to participate in the
workforce. The committee acknowledges that the Bill contains appropriate
safeguards for grandparent carers and single parents who have limited capacity
to find employment.[21]
- in
regards to the phasing out of the FTB-A and FTB-B supplements, the Committee
report stated:
The committee recognises that a small proportion of families
use the supplement for its original purpose to offset debts incurred as a
result of FTB overpayments. The committee is satisfied that under the Single
Touch Payroll system, families will be able to more accurately estimate
payments and less likely to incur a debt. The committee also recognises that
reducing the number of income support supplements is consistent with the
recommendations of the McClure Report to improve the sustainability of
Australia's welfare system.[22]
- in
regards to linking the projected savings to the child care package:
The committee considers that using the savings for this
purpose is justified and will contribute to increasing productivity and
boosting the participation of parents in the workforce. The committee notes
that the combination of these measures, together with the Jobs for Families
childcare package, will help to support families to support themselves and
reduce their dependence on welfare payments.[23]
The Committee also supported the increase to FTB-A
fortnightly rates and recommended the Bill be passed.[24]
Labor and Greens Senators issued dissenting reports. Labor
Senators stated that the measures ‘are not linked to child care’ and additional
funding for child care ‘should not come out of the pockets of low income families’.[25]
Labor Senators recommended that only the measure affecting couple families with
children aged over 13 years be passed and the rest of the Bill rejected.[26]
The Greens recommended the Bill in its entirety be rejected.[27]
Social
Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and
Participation Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2015
In regards to the No. 2 Bill, the Committee believed the
modified versions of measures previously proposed in the No. 1 Bill had
appropriately addressed concerns regarding the impact on certain vulnerable
families (primarily grandparent carers and older parents).[28]
The committee made almost identical comments to those in its report on the No.
1 Bill in regards to concerns about the changes to FTB-B rates, the phasing out
of the FTB-A and FTB-B supplements and linking the savings to the Government’s
child care package.[29]
Again, Labor and Greens Senators issued dissenting reports
recommending that the Bill be rejected.[30]
Policy
position of non-government parties/independents
Labor has stated that it remains opposed to the measures
proposed in the 2016 Bill. Shadow Minister for Families and Social Services,
Jenny Macklin, stated:
Changes to family payments include harsh cuts to Family Tax
Benefits that will leave a single parent family on $65,000 a year around $3,000
a year worse off ... Labor will continue to oppose these unfair cuts to
Australian families.[31]
In their dissenting report to the Senate Education and
Employment Committee’s inquiry into the 2016 Bill, Labor Senators recommended
that the Senate reject the Bill and stated that they ‘oppose the idea that low
income families should be held to ransom to pay for early education and care
changes’.[32]
The Greens made commitments in the 2016 Election to oppose
Coalition ‘cuts to family payments’ and to actually reverse cuts that had
already been made.[33]
In their dissenting report to the Senate Education and Employment Committee’s
inquiry into the 2016 Bill, Greens Senators recommended that the 2016 Bill be
rejected.[34]
Senator Jacqui Lambie has not commented on the 2016 Bill
but previously indicated, in regards to the No. 1 and No. 2 Bill, that she
would not support any cuts to family payments.[35]
It is unclear what the position of the other crossbench
senators is in regards to the 2016 Bill.
Position of
major interest groups
National
Welfare Rights Network
The National Welfare Rights Network (NWRN) stated in its
submission to the Senate Education and Employment Committee’s inquiry into the 2016
Bill that it continues to oppose the measures. NWRN stated:
Even with the modest increase for FTB Part A, they represent
a significant cut in the disposable incomes of low income households,
especially for single parents with children aged 13 and over. This comes on top
of a series of cuts already affecting the incomes of families, especially the
poorest families reliant on income support payments ...
The cumulative impact will be particularly great for single
parents on Newstart Allowance with children aged 13 and over, including those
moved onto Newstart by the former Government in 2013. In short, the Government
continues to place the burden of Budget repair disproportionately on the
poorest and vulnerable members of our community.[36]
Australian
Council of Social Service
The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS), in its
submission to the Committee inquiry into the 2016 Bill, recommended that the
Bill be rejected in its current form. ACOSS stated:
The numbers affected and the extent of the income losses mean
that the changes are likely to lead to an increase in child poverty, noting
child poverty is already concentrated in single parent families. There are
already 600,000 children living below the poverty line.[37]
ACOSS also argued that replacing the two-tiered FTB-B
payment with four tiers of payment rates ‘could hardly be called a
simplification of the family payments system, nor a reform which improves
targeting to need’.[38]
ACOSS also criticised the Government for not releasing any distributional
analysis of the impact of the proposed changes.[39]
Australian
Council of Trade Unions
In its submission to the committee inquiry into the 2016 Bill,
the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) stated:
... in our view it is highly inequitable for the Government to
target the most vulnerable members of our society in order to provided
much-needed support for early learning and development. The reduction in FTB
Part B and abolition of end of year supplements will substantially reduce
household income for low income and vulnerable families including single
parents and families of children with disability and is likely to increase the
number of Australian families living below the poverty line.[40]
The ACTU is ‘fundamentally opposed’ to funding the child
care package by cutting family tax benefit and other supports for families.[41]
Financial
implications
The financial impact of the 2016 Bill, as announced, is
estimated to be a saving of $5.8 billion over the forward estimates.[42]
As noted above, one recently legislated measure and one
announced change will affect these estimates. Firstly, the new income limit on
the FTB-A supplement provided for by the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Act 2016
will reduce the expected savings from the phasing out of the supplement. It is
unclear by how much. Secondly, as part of the deal to secure passage of the Budget
Savings (Omnibus) Act 2016, the Government announced that it would no
longer proceed with the increase in FTB-B rates for families with a youngest
child aged less than one year. This will increase the net savings from the 2016
Bill. A costing by the Parliamentary Budget Office of a Labor election
commitment to not proceed with this FTB-B rate change suggested it would save
$372.0 million over the forward estimates.[43]
The savings are intended to be directed towards the Jobs for
Families child care package. However, as noted above, the estimated savings
from the 2016 Bill are greater than the $3.0 billion in additional funding
provided for the child care package.
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights
(Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed the 2016
Bill’s compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared
in the international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The Statement
of Compatibility with Human Rights states that the 2016 Bill engages with the
right to social security under Article 9 of the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well right of the child to benefit
from social security under Article 26 of the Convention on the Rights of the
Child.[44]
The Government considers that the 2016 Bill is compatible as any changes that
limit access to social security are ‘reasonable and proportionate.[45]
Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights
The PJCHR reported on the No.1 and the No. 2 Bills and found
that the Statements of Compatibility did not sufficiently justify the
limitations on human rights for the purposes of international human rights law.[46]
The PJCHR requested further information from the Minister for Social Services.
The Minister responded in regards to the No. 1 Bill in a letter providing
further reasoning behind the limitations. The PJCHR accepted these
justifications and the compatibility of the measures in the No. 1 Bill as
introduced.[47]
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (PJCHR)
reported on the 2016 Bill in its seventh report of 2016.[48]
It noted its assessments of the previous Bills and thanked the Minister for
Social Services for including the additional information it requested in
regards to the No. 1 Bill in the statement of compatibility for the 2016 Bill.[49]
Key issues
and provisions
For analysis of the key issues see the Bills Digest for
the No. 1 Bill.[50]
The provisions in the 2016 Bill are essentially the same
as those previously proposed in the No. 2 Bill. The only significant difference
between the 2016 Bill and the No. 2 Bill is that the commencement date for
Schedule 2 has been pushed back from 1 July 2016 (in the No. 2 Bill) to
1 July 2017 (in the 2016 Bill).
Concluding
comments
The measures proposed in the 2016 Bill remain contentious
amongst the main welfare and community groups. With the Government’s
announcement that it would no longer proceed with the increase in FTB-B rates
for families with a youngest child aged under one year (part of Schedule 2 of
the 2016 Bill), all FTB-A and FTB-B recipients will, over time, receive reduced
payments. This is because the increases in maximum FTB-A rates (proposed in
Schedule 1) are more than offset by the soon-to-be phased-out FTB-A
supplements. Single parents in receipt of FTB-B with older children will be
particularly affected through the combined reduction in FTB-B rates, and the
withdrawal of the FTB-A and FTB-B supplements.
The FTB program has been a key target in the Government’s
quest for budget savings. The FTB-A and FTB-B reductions in the 2016 Bill are
further to already legislated family payment savings measures in the previous
Parliament, and the recent measures introduced via the Budget Savings
(Omnibus) Act 2016.[51]
The No. 1 Bill provided $525.5 million in FTB savings over the forward
estimates.[52]
The Budget Savings (Omnibus) Act 2016 included measures to derive more
than $2 billion in savings from the FTB program.[53]
The 2016 Bill, as introduced, seeks a further $5.8 billion in savings. While
around $3.0 billion is to be diverted to funding the Jobs for Families child
care program, the Government will still stand to net significant savings.
The key issue is whether the Government can secure
support for these savings given they will arise from reduced assistance to
families.
[1]. Parliament
of Australia, ‘Social
Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and
Participation Measures) Bill 2015 homepage’, Australian Parliament website.
[2]. Parliament
of Australia, ‘Social
Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and
Participation Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2015 homepage’, Australian Parliament
website.
[3]. M
Klapdor, Social
Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and
Participation Measures) Bill 2015, Bills digest, 50, 2015–16,
Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 18 November 2015.
[4]. M
Klapdor, ‘Omnibus
Bill compromise to find further savings from family payments’, FlagPost,
Parliamentary Library blog, 14 September 2016.
[5]. S
Morrison (Treasurer) and M Cormann (Minister for Finance), Government
secures support for over $6 billion in budget savings, joint media
release, 13 September 2016; D Crowe, ‘Families
to wear cost of budget savings deal’, The Australian, 14 September
2016, p. 1.
[6]. Klapdor,
‘Omnibus Bill compromise to find further savings from family payments’, op.
cit.
[7]. Crowe,
‘Families to wear cost of budget savings deal’, op. cit., p. 1.
[8]. Ibid.
[9]. Parliamentary
Budget Office (PBO), ‘Appendix
F: costing documentation of Labor’s election commitments’, Post-election
report of election commitments: 2016 general election, PBO, Canberra,
August 2016, p. 183.
[10]. T
Abbott (Prime Minister) and S Morrison (Minister for Social Services), Jobs
for Families child care package delivers choice for families, joint
media release, 10 May 2015; M Sheppard, ‘Early
childhood education and care’, Budget review 2015–16, Research paper
series, 2014–15, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, May 2015, pp. 133–35.
[11]. C
Porter, ‘Second
reading speech: Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments
Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill 2015’, House of
Representatives, Debates, 21 October 2015, p. 11919.
[12]. C
Porter, ‘Second
reading speech: Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments
Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill 2016’, House of
Representatives, Debates, 1 September 2016, pp. 277–80.
[13]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments
Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill 2016, p. 2.
[14]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families
Child Care Package) Bill 2016, p. 4.
[15]. Senate
Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Inquiry
homepage for the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families
Child Care Package) Bill 2016, and the Social Services Legislation Amendment
(Family Payment Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill 2016,
The Senate, Canberra, 2016.
[16]. Senate
Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care
Package) Bill 2016 [Provisions] and the Social Services Legislation Amendment
(Family Payment Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill 2016 [Provisions],
The Senate, Canberra, 10 October 2016, p. 28.
[17]. Ibid.
[18]. Ibid.,
p. 29.
[19]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Alert
digest, 1, 2016, The Senate, 3 February 2016, p. 40; Senate Standing
Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Alert
digest, 6, 2016, The Senate, 14 September 2016, p. 32.
[20]. Senate
Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Social
Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and
Participation Measures) Bill 2015 [Provisions], The Senate, Canberra, 30
November 2015, p. 7.
[21]. Ibid.,
p. 14.
[22]. Ibid.,
pp. 14–15.
[23]. Ibid.,
p. 15.
[24]. Ibid.,
p. 14–15.
[25]. Labor
Senators, Dissenting
report, Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and
Participation Measures) Bill 2015 [Provisions], The Senate, Canberra, 30
November 2015, p. 24.
[26]. Ibid.,
p. 25.
[27]. Australian
Greens Senators, Dissenting
report, Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and
Participation Measures) Bill 2015 [Provisions], The Senate, Canberra, 30 November 2015,
p. 34.
[28]. Senate
Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Social
Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and
Participation Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2015 [Provisions], The Senate, Canberra,
1 March 2016, p. 22.
[29]. Ibid.,
p. 22.
[30]. Labor
Senators, Dissenting
report, Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and
Participation Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2015 [Provisions], The Senate,
Canberra, 1 March 2016; Australian Greens Senators, Dissenting
report, Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and
Participation Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2015 [Provisions], The Senate,
Canberra, 1 March 2016.
[31]. J
Macklin (Shadow Minister for Families and Social Services), Zombie
measures rise again ... in the 45th Parliament, media release,
1 September 2016.
[32]. Labor
Senators, Dissenting
report, Senate Education and Employment
Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the Family Assistance Legislation
Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Bill 2016 [Provisions] and the
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payment Structural Reform and
Participation Measures) Bill 2016 [Provisions], The Senate, Canberra, 10
October 2016, pp. 39–40.
[33]. Australian
Greens, Equality
and compassion: lifting income support, Australian Greens policy
document, Election 2016.
[34]. Australian
Greens Senators, Dissenting
report, Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care
Package) Bill 2016 [Provisions] and the Social Services Legislation Amendment
(Family Payment Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill 2016
[Provisions], The Senate, Canberra, 10 October 2016, p. 46.
[35]. J
Lambie, ‘Adjournment:
Federal Assistance Grants, Pensions and Benefits, Veterans’ Affairs’,
Senate, Debates, 1 December 2016, pp. 9541–9542.
[36]. National
Welfare Rights Network, Submission,
no. 23, to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care
Package) Bill 2016, and the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family
Payment Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill 2016, 22
September 2016, p. 5.
[37]. Australian
Council of Social Service, Submission,
no. 29, to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care
Package) Bill 2016, and the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family
Payment Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill 2016, September
2016, p. 4.
[38]. Ibid.,
p. 5.
[39]. Ibid.
p. 5.
[40]. Australian
Council of Trade Unions, Submission,
no. 21, to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care
Package) Bill 2016, and the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family
Payment Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill 2016, 22
September 2016, p. 1.
[41]. Ibid.
[42]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments
Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill 2016, p. 2.
[43]. PBO,
‘Appendix F: costing documentation of Labor’s election commitments’, op. cit.
[44]. The
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights can be found at page 12 of the
Explanatory Memorandum to the 2016 Bill. Explanatory
Memorandum, Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments
Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill 2016, pp. 12–20.
[45]. Ibid.
[46]. See
M Klapdor, Social
Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and
Participation Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2015, Bills digest, no. 65,
2015–16, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 19 January 2016, pp. 5–6.
[47]. Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights, Thirty-seventh
report of the 44th Parliament, 2 May 2016, pp. 53–57.
[48]. Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report,
7, 2016, The Senate, 11 October 2016, pp. 95–96.
[49]. Ibid.
[50]. Klapdor,
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and
Participation Measures) Bill 2015, op. cit.
[51]. Klapdor,
‘Omnibus Bill compromise to find further savings from family payments’, op.
cit.
[52]. Revised
Explanatory
Memorandum, Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments
Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill 2015, p. 1.
[53]. Klapdor,
‘Omnibus Bill compromise to find further savings from family payments’, op.
cit.
For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Creative Commons
With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.
In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.
To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.
Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.
Disclaimer: Bills Digests are prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament. They are produced under time and resource constraints and aim to be available in time for debate in the Chambers. The views expressed in Bills Digests do not reflect an official position of the Australian Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion. Bills Digests reflect the relevant legislation as introduced and do not canvass subsequent amendments or developments. Other sources should be consulted to determine the official status of the Bill.
Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Enquiry Point for referral.