|
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment
Bill 2013
Introduced into the House of
Representatives on 13 February 2013
Portfolio:
Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
Summary of
committee view
1.1
The committee
seeks clarification as to whether the reduction in the baby bonus is likely to have
a negative impact on less well-off families and if so, the basis for
considering that the reduction is a justifiable limitation of the right to
social security in article 9 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
Overview
1.2
This bill
implements the government’s changes to the baby bonus announced in the 2012-13
Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. These changes are intended to maintain
support for new parents with the upfront costs of having a baby, while ensuring
the family payments system is sustainable into the future.
1.3
Specifically,
the amount of baby bonus for any second and subsequent children who come into a
family from 1 July 2013 will be reduced from $5,000 to $3,000. However, the
baby bonus will continue to be paid at the rate of $5,000 for a family’s first
child.
1.4
The bill also
makes amendments to ensure family tax benefits are continued until the end of
the calendar year that a child finishes school, and extends the qualification
for the double orphan pension.
Compatibility with human
rights
1.5
The bill is
accompanied by self-contained statements of compatibility, each of which
addresses the human rights implications of the amendments proposed by the
separate schedules to the bill.
1.6
The statements
identify a number of rights which are said to be promoted by the bill, in
particular the right to social security guaranteed by article 9 of the ICESCR
and the rights of children to social security provided for in article 26 of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The statement of compatibility
also refers to the right to health in article 12 of the ICESCR, as well as to
article 20 of the CRC which provides for special protection and assistance to
children who are temporarily or permanently deprived of their family
environment.
1.7
In general, the
amendments proposed by the bill expand access to benefits, either by making
them available to persons to whom they were not previously available, by
extending the periods of eligibility for access to benefits by ‘customers’, or
by allowing the payment of certain benefits to be brought forward.
Retrogressive
measure
1.8
However, in one
respect the bill proposes what might be viewed as a retrogressive measure or a
limitation, namely insofar as it proposes to reduce the baby bonus from $5,000
to $3,000 for a second or later child (with some exceptions, such as multiple
births). The statement of compatibility justifies this in the following terms:
The purpose
of the amendments to baby bonus is to maintain support for new parents with the
upfront costs of having a baby, while ensuring the family payments system is
sustainable into the future. The amendments recognise that families do not face
the same upfront costs for a second or later child as they do for their first
child, with the more expensive items usually already purchased.[1]
1.9
The explanatory
memorandum further explains:
The saving
from this measure will support the future sustainability of the family payments
system, which continues to deliver substantial assistance for low and
middle-income families – including through paid parental leave, dad and partner
pay, the schoolkids bonus and family tax benefit and child care payments.[2]
1.10
The explanatory
memorandum notes that the changes to the baby bonus scheme are estimated to
save $505.9 million over four years from 2012-13 to 2015-16.[3]
1.11
The statement of
compatibility does not provide any empirical data to support the claim that the
expenses incurred with the arrival of a second or later child will be
significantly less than the costs of a first child, making only a general claim
to this effect. Further, the baby bonus payment is means-tested, and the
reduction of the payment in relation to second and subsequent children may have
a more severe effect on those families who are less well-off than on other
families whose income is closer to the cut-off amount for eligibility for the
payment. It does not appear from the explanatory memorandum or statement of
compatibility that any attention was given to the differential impact of the
changes on less well-off families in deciding on the amount of the reduction or
the across the board implementation of the change.
1.12
The
committee notes that the reduction in the baby bonus was taken with the goal of
making available resources to support the payment of other social security
payments. However, the committee would have found it helpful to be provided
with empirical data to support claims about the impact of the reduction in the baby
bonus on families, in particular the impact on less well-off families.
1.13
The
committee intends to write to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community
Services and Indigenous Affairs to seek clarification as to whether the
reduction in the baby bonus is likely to have a negative impact on less
well-off families and if so, the basis for considering that the reduction is a
justifiable limitation on the right to social security in article 9 of the
ICESCR.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Top
|