tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/family-tax-benefit-35688/articlesFamily Tax Benefit – The Conversation2018-12-02T18:47:48Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1075212018-12-02T18:47:48Z2018-12-02T18:47:48ZIt’s not just Newstart. Single parents are $271 per fortnight worse off. Labor needs an overarching welfare review<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/248205/original/file-20181201-194935-1ldqocl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Single parents have been made worse off by the Howard, Rudd, Gillard, Abbott and Turnbull governments. It's time to take stock.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstck</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Thirty years after Prime Minister Bob Hawke famously promised that by 1990 <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/no-child-shall-live-in-poverty-study-finds-hawke-has-nothing-to-be-ashamed-of-20171014-gz0whw.html">no Australian child would live in poverty</a>, Bill Shorten has promised that, if elected, Labor will use a “root and branch review” to <a href="https://www.9news.com.au/2018/10/31/08/06/bill-shorten-labor-review-newstart-allowance">lift the rate of the Newstart unemployment benefit</a>. </p>
<p>Two crossbenchers, Cathy McGowan and Rebekha Sharkie, want to go further. </p>
<p>They have introduced a <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/chamber/hansardr/66d5616d-41f7-432b-b370-a62012124e44/toc_pdf/House%20of%20Representatives_2018_08_20_6436_Official.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22chamber/hansardr/66d5616d-41f7-432b-b370-a62012124e44/0043%22">private member’s bill</a> that would create an independent commission to examine the adequacy of all social security payments other than family payments and payments to veterans. </p>
<p>It would <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2018/November/Social_Security_Commission_Bill_2018">make recommendations</a>, rather than set rates.</p>
<p>The Government opposes it. Labor has opposed such proposals in the past. Prime Minister Scott Morrison has said he would like to increase payments, but they would be ones of his choosing – he would <a href="https://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/morrison-ridicules-raising-newstart-rate/news-story/04df1d4237f9e609435362de5153c15b">lift the pension before lifting Newstart</a>.</p>
<p>But the pension is already much higher than Newstart, and other benefits have fallen behind by more.</p>
<h2>What’s wrong with Newstart?</h2>
<p>Newstart is inadequate and getting worse. </p>
<p>The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development raised “<a href="http://insidestory.org.au/why-unemployment-benefits-need-to-be-increased/">concerns about its adequacy</a>” as long ago as 2010.</p>
<p>In a report on Australia it suggested that not only it might be insufficient to live on, it also might be insufficient to enable those on it <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/42554271/OECD-on-NewStart">to look for work</a>.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The relatively low net replacement rate in the first year of the unemployment spell raises issues about its effectiveness in providing sufficient support for those experiencing a job loss, or enabling someone to look for a suitable job.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The main reason why it is inadequate is that it hasn’t increased by much more than inflation since 1994. General living standards have soared during those two and a half decades, as has the pension which is linked to them by being set as proportion of male wages, and which was increased substantially in 2009.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/248108/original/file-20181130-194947-11yjbjx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/248108/original/file-20181130-194947-11yjbjx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/248108/original/file-20181130-194947-11yjbjx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=357&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/248108/original/file-20181130-194947-11yjbjx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=357&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/248108/original/file-20181130-194947-11yjbjx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=357&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/248108/original/file-20181130-194947-11yjbjx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/248108/original/file-20181130-194947-11yjbjx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/248108/original/file-20181130-194947-11yjbjx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">ACOSS</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>Newstart is now only A$275.20 per week. The pension is A$417.20 per week (A$458.15 with the pension supplement and energy supplement). </p>
<p>Unless it is better indexed, Newstart will slide even further relative to other payments and living standards.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/new-budget-standards-show-just-how-inadequate-the-newstart-allowance-has-become-82903">New budget standards show just how inadequate the Newstart Allowance has become</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Since 1994-95 the buying power of the median household disposable income has <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/6523.02015-16?OpenDocument">climbed 55%</a>. The buying power of Newstart has barely budged. </p>
<p>It has pushed people on Newstart further down the income ladder.</p>
<p>In 1994-95 a single person on Newstart received A$24 per week less than a low-earning household at the top of the bottom tenth of the income distribution.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/will-a-newstart-boost-actually-deter-jobseekers-9083">Will a Newstart boost actually deter jobseekers?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>By 2015-16 that single person on Newstart got A$175 per week less than the low earning household.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.acoss.org.au/raisetherate/">Australian Council of Social Service</a>, the <a href="https://www.bca.com.au/australia_at_work_managing_adjustment_and_change">Business Council of Australia</a> and a wide range of other community and business leaders including the former prime minister <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/freeze-has-gone-on-too-long-john-howard-calls-for-a-dole-increase-20180509-p4ze83.html">John Howard</a> and most of the parliament’s <a href="https://www.acoss.org.au/media_release/from-kerryn-to-derryn-bob-to-bandt-entire-lower-house-crossbench-and-key-senate-crossbenchers-support-increase-to-newstart/">crossbench</a> have called for a lift in Newstart and a better method of setting it.</p>
<h2>There’s more to it than Newstart</h2>
<p>The relative decline in Newstart was the result of neglect. It was left indexed to the consumer price index when, over the long term, it should have been indexed to a measure that moves with community living standards.</p>
<p>But in other cases, governments under five prime ministers over the past twelve years have made explicit decisions to cut assistance, most severely for low income single parents. </p>
<p>In 2006 the Howard government made substantial changes to the Parenting Payment Single (PPS) and the Parenting Payment – Partnered (PPP) as part of what it called a <a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2005-06/overview2/download/overview_welfare.pdf">welfare to work</a> program.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-can-the-government-justify-a-policy-that-penalises-working-sole-parents-12643">How can the government justify a policy that penalises working sole parents?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Single parents claiming the PPS after July 1, 2006 would lose it when their youngest child turned eight. They would go onto the much lower Newstart unemployment benefit, and be expected to look for work.</p>
<p>Partnered parents claiming the PPP would lose it when their youngest child turned six, but for them it made little difference because their parenting payment and Newstart were about the same.</p>
<p>For single parents it meant <a href="https://theconversation.com/harsh-realities-of-a-policy-that-moves-more-into-poverty-10097">a significant cut in benefits at the time</a>, and a harsher income test.</p>
<p>Those receiving PPS before July 1, 2006 were “grandfathered” meaning they could continue to receive it until their youngest child turned 16.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/prejudiced-policymaking-underlies-labors-cuts-to-single-parent-payments-10151">Prejudiced policymaking underlies Labor's cuts to single parent payments</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But in 2013, the Gillard government <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview201213/ParentingPayment">removed grandfathering</a>, requiring all single parents with older children to be moved onto Newstart or other payments if eligible.</p>
<p>At that time the maximum rate of Parenting Payment Single was $331.85 per week. The maximum rate of Newstart was $266.50.</p>
<p>And a change introduced by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd made the parenting payments themselves less generous.</p>
<p>For many decades, the basic rate of payment for most single parents was the same as the pension. </p>
<p>In 2009 the Rudd government delinked them and <a href="http://guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/1/2/4/10">lowered the wages benchmark</a> so that PPS was set at 25% of male total average weekly earnings instead of 27.7%. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.budget.gov.au/2009-10/content/speech/html/speech.htm">2009-10 Budget</a> also changed the link between levels of the maximum rate of Family Tax Benefit Part A and the married rate of pension, a link originally established following the <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/no-child-shall-live-in-poverty-study-finds-hawke-has-nothing-to-be-ashamed-of-20171014-gz0whw.html">Hawke government’s child poverty pledge</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/about-the-department/publications-articles/corporate-publications/budget-and-additional-estimates-statements/2009-10-budget/reform-of-family-payments-family-tax-benefit-part-a-ftb-a-removing-the-link-to-pension-indexation">These changes</a> have shrunk Family Tax Benefit payments per child from 16.6% – 21.6% of the married pension rate to 14.5% – 18.9%, a difference now of $13 per week for each younger child and $17 per week for each older child – with more shrinkage to come.</p>
<p>In 2014 the first Abbott budget attempted to further wind back <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview201314/FamilyPayments">Family Tax Benefits</a>.</p>
<p>After a tough time in the Senate, several of his measures finally passed, under Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull in 2016 and 2017. </p>
<p>Family Tax Benefit B has been closed to couple families with children aged 13 years or older and the Family Tax Benefit B income test tightened, the size of the payments to large families has been wound back, the Family Tax benefit A end of year supplement has been withdrawn from families earning over A$80,000 per annum and rates have pay have been temporarily frozen, so that they don’t even increase with inflation.</p>
<h2>What’s been the total of cuts since 2006?</h2>
<p>The cumulative effects of the policy choices since 2006 on the disposable incomes of single parent families are substantial. </p>
<p>We have compared how much low-income parents currently receive, compared to what they would be receiving if these changes had not been made.</p>
<p>Our calculations are conservative. </p>
<p>We have ignored a number of changes including payments that have come and gone such as the Schoolkid’s Bonus and the Energy Supplement or changes that affect high income families. Nor have we taken into account the loss of payments to families with with four or more children due to the <a href="https://www.humanservices.gov.au/organisations/about-us/budget/budget-2015-16/budget-measures/families/cessation-large-family-supplement-family-tax-benefit-part">phasing out of the Large Family Supplement from July 2016</a>.</p>
<p>Single parents still on Parenting Payment Single with two younger children have lost nearly $85 per fortnight; about 6% of their disposable incomes. For families with older children, the loss is about $271 per fortnight; a cut in disposable income of nearly 19%.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/one-in-four-children-from-single-parent-families-live-in-poverty-15097">One in four children from single-parent families live in poverty</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In total there are around 360,000 families with children, Australia’s poorest, who are getting considerably less financial support.</p>
<p>It has happened as a result of actions by both sides of politics under prime ministers Howard, Rudd, Gillard, Abbott and Turnbull.</p>
<p>As with the decision to link Newstart to the consumer price index rather than wages, the effects of their decisions will widen over time. The poorest families, and their children, will increasingly fall behind the rest of the population.</p>
<p>This process is already strongly entrenched. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/housing-affordability-stress-affects-one-in-nine-households-but-which-ones-are-really-struggling-96103">Housing affordability stress affects one in nine households, but which ones are really struggling?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Research by <a href="https://www.acoss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Methodology-Paper_Poverty-in-Australia-2018.pdf%5D(https://www.acoss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Methodology-Paper_Poverty-in-Australia-2018.pdf)%20%5Bhttps://www.acoss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Methodology-Paper_Poverty-in-Australia-2018.pdf%5D(https://www.acoss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Methodology-Paper_Poverty-in-Australia-2018.pdf">Peter Saunders, Bruce Bradbury and Melissa Wong</a> for the joint ACOSS-UNSW report on poverty finds that the transfer of 80,000 sole parents to Newstart in 2013 was associated with an increase in the rate of after-housing poverty among unemployed sole parents <a href="https://www.acoss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ACOSS_Poverty-in-Australia-Report_Web-Final.pdf">from 35% to nearly 60%</a>.</p>
<h2>Have the cuts got single parents into jobs?</h2>
<p>The stated purpose of the cuts to Parenting Payment Single was to get them into jobs.</p>
<p>First impressions suggest that they have.</p>
<p>In 2005-06 51% of single parent households had social security benefits as their main source of income. A decade later this <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/allprimarymainfeatures/5F4BB49C975C64C9CA256D6B00827ADB?opendocument">was 42%</a>.</p>
<p>In 2005 around 49% of lone parent families with a youngest child under 15 were employed. By 2009 the proportion had grown to 59%.</p>
<p>But in both cases the changes started before the changes to benefits, from the middle of the 1990s.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/for-single-parents-it-pays-to-work-68158">For single parents, it pays to work</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>And the proportion of single parents employed went backwards during the global financial crisis, sliding to 53% and only recovering to 55% in 2017, despite the move of families from Parenting Payment Single to Newstart.</p>
<h2>It’s time for a proper review</h2>
<p>The “root and branch review” promised by Bill Shorten and the ongoing commission proposed by crossbenchers are not mutually exclusive. </p>
<p>An immediate review could be used to increase payments in the shorter term, while an ongoing commission could examine longer-term priorities.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/for-richer-or-poorer-the-delicate-art-of-messing-with-middle-class-welfare-1560">For richer or poorer: the delicate art of messing with middle class welfare</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The scope of these inquiries should not be limited to Newstart. </p>
<p>Parenting Payments and Family Tax Benefits are also a fundamental component of the social safety net.</p>
<p>There is case for going further and examining the entire structure of the social security system.</p>
<p>The most comprehensive examination was the <a href="https://crawford.anu.edu.au/publication/ttpi-working-papers/12551/social-policy-inquiries-australia-henderson-poverty-inquiry">Henderson Poverty Inquiry</a> commissioned by the McMahon government and extended by the Whitlam government more than four decades ago.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/whitlams-forgotten-legacy-a-voice-for-the-poor-33230">Whitlam’s forgotten legacy: a voice for the poor</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>A comprehensive review of Australia’s social security system, undertaken in an integrated fashion and including tax as well as payments (including those for childcare and to support people who study and work) is overdue. </p>
<p>We need such a review to consider the design of our safety net in the light of economic, demographic, technological and social changes, and those to come.</p>
<p>It ought to be a key priority of Australia’s next government.</p>
<p>It ought to set up our support systems for the future.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/107521/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Whiteford has received funding from the Australian Research Council and from the Department of Social Services. He is affiliated with the Centre for Policy Development and is an ACOSS Policy Adviser, and was a member of the Reference Group for the Harmer Pension Review. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Phillips receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bruce Bradbury is employed by the University of New South Wales and receives project funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australian Council of Social Services. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Gray has received funding from many Australian Government departments and Australian state and territory departments to undertake research.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Miranda Stewart receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Stanton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Fixing Newstart isn’t enough. We need a comprehensive inquiry into our complex and bewildering social security system, especially as it applies to single parents.Peter Whiteford, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National UniversityBen Phillips, Associate Professor, Centre for Social Research and Methods, Director, Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), Australian National UniversityBruce Bradbury, Associate Professor, Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW SydneyDavid Stanton, Honorary Associate Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU, Australian National UniversityMatthew Gray, Director, ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods, Australian National UniversityMiranda Stewart, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/921132018-03-06T19:30:15Z2018-03-06T19:30:15ZChild tooth decay is on the rise, but few are brushing their teeth enough or seeing the dentist<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209003/original/file-20180306-146666-10uh5hy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Early dental visits are essential to help parents keep their children's teeth and gums healthy.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>One-third of preschoolers have never seen a dentist and most parents believe children don’t need to see one before they’re three years old. Yet one-quarter of Australian children have tooth decay that requires filling by early primary school. One in ten require an extraction.</p>
<p>Results released today from the latest <a href="https://www.rchpoll.org.au">Royal Children’s Hospital National Child Health Poll</a> also reveal one in three children (33%) aren’t brushing their teeth twice a day and almost half of parents (46%) don’t know that tap water is better for teeth than bottled water.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/four-myths-about-water-fluoridation-and-why-theyre-wrong-80669">Four myths about water fluoridation and why they're wrong</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Rates of tooth decay are <a href="https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/dental-oral-health/dental-decay-among-australian-children/contents/table-of-contents">on the rise</a> in Australia, particularly among young children. More than 26,000 Australians under the age of 15 are <a href="https://www2.health.vic.gov.au/about/publications/policiesandguidelines/Evidence-based-oral-health-promotion-resource-2011">admitted to hospital</a> to treat tooth decay every year. This makes it the highest cause of acute, preventable hospital stays. </p>
<p>Untreated dental disease can cause chronic infection and pain. This can affect a child’s ability to eat, play and learn, and so <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17128231">impact their growth</a>, development and quality of life. It’s also linked to long-term health outcomes like <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19563277">heart disease and diabetes</a>.</p>
<p>Our poll shows that many parents, despite meaning well, lack the basic knowledge to prevent tooth decay in their children. Others are confused when it comes to recommendations about brushing teeth, diet and when to see the dentist for a check-up.</p>
<h2>When a child should see the dentist</h2>
<p>Children <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12728101">should visit the dentist</a> when their first tooth comes through, or at 12 months of age. Our poll found only 17% of children had seen a dentist by the age of two.</p>
<p>Early visits are essential to provide parents with support and education to help keep their children’s teeth and gums healthy, before teeth break down and start to cause trouble. Children as young as two can require treatment in hospital for severely broken down, infected and painful teeth.</p>
<p>Tooth decay develops over time and early decay can be hard to spot. Starting dental check-ups from 12 months will help identify any red flags and allow parents to make changes to diet and lifestyle. Regular check-ups allow decay to be detected and treated early and more complex and costly treatments avoided. Some children require check-ups <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2011.01339.x/full">more often than others</a> and parents should consult with their dentist on how often their child should go.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209043/original/file-20180306-146666-6jrx5v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209043/original/file-20180306-146666-6jrx5v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209043/original/file-20180306-146666-6jrx5v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209043/original/file-20180306-146666-6jrx5v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209043/original/file-20180306-146666-6jrx5v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209043/original/file-20180306-146666-6jrx5v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209043/original/file-20180306-146666-6jrx5v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209043/original/file-20180306-146666-6jrx5v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Tooth decay can develop quickly and be hard to stop.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">from shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Seeing a dentist can be costly though. In our poll, one in five parents cited cost as a reason for delaying a visit to the dentist. But many were unaware of the free dental services that may be available to their children. All Australian states and territories offer public dental care to children at no or minimal cost, up to a certain age. </p>
<p>In addition to this, the federal <a href="https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/services/medicare/child-dental-benefits-schedule">Child Dental Benefits Schedule</a> provides eligible families with up to A$1,000 worth of treatment over two years. This can be used for private as well as public dental services for children aged 2-17. All children in families receiving <a href="https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/enablers/who-can-get-child-dental-benefits-schedule">Parenting Payment or Family Tax Benefit Part A</a> are eligible for the program. One-quarter of eligible families we surveyed weren’t aware of the program.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/kids-vitamin-gummies-unhealthy-poorly-regulated-and-exploitative-76466">Kids' vitamin gummies: unhealthy, poorly regulated and exploitative</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Ultimately, only dental professionals are registered to provide dental examinations to children. But young children often see a range of healthcare providers for different reasons. Every visit to the GP, pharmacist or child health nurse is an opportunity for dental education and decay prevention. GPs and child health nurses can also help direct families to appropriate and affordable dental services. </p>
<h2>When should children brush their teeth?</h2>
<p>While brushing once a day is better than not at all, brushing teeth twice a day <a href="http://www.cochrane.org/CD002278/ORAL_fluoride-toothpastes-preventing-dental-caries-children-and-adolescents">further reduces the chance</a> of tooth decay. Our poll found one-third of children aren’t brushing their teeth often enough, with one in four parents believing once a day is adequate. </p>
<p>Dentists recommend using a cloth to clean a baby’s gums from birth, moving onto a toothbrush with water when the first tooth erupts. A pea-sized amount of children’s strength toothpaste is recommended from 18 months of age. Children can use adult-strength toothpaste from the age of six. Parents <a href="https://www.ada.org.au/Your-Dental-Health/Children-0-11/Toddlers">should help children</a> with brushing their teeth up to the age of eight to ensure it’s done properly.</p>
<p>Most children will begin losing their primary teeth, also known as “baby” or “milk” teeth, from around the age of six. The last falls out about age 12. One in five parents indicated they thought it didn’t matter if young children got tooth decay since their baby teeth fall out anyway. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209016/original/file-20180306-146694-wqcri0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209016/original/file-20180306-146694-wqcri0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/209016/original/file-20180306-146694-wqcri0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=765&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209016/original/file-20180306-146694-wqcri0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=765&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209016/original/file-20180306-146694-wqcri0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=765&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209016/original/file-20180306-146694-wqcri0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=961&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209016/original/file-20180306-146694-wqcri0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=961&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/209016/original/file-20180306-146694-wqcri0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=961&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Parents should help children brush their teeth until they are about eight years old.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">from shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Primary teeth may be temporary, but they need to be strong and healthy so children can chew, speak and smile with confidence. They also act as “space savers” for adult teeth. If a child prematurely loses a milk tooth, the tooth beside it may drift into the empty space, preventing the adult tooth from erupting into its proper place.</p>
<h2>What about diet?</h2>
<p>Our poll found one in four children under five years are put to bed most days of the week with a bottle containing milk-based or sweetened drinks. This practice is strongly <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11109219">linked to tooth decay</a> due to the prolonged exposure of teeth to sugar during sleep. Babies should finish their bottles <em>before</em> being put into bed. From around one year of age, they should be encouraged to drink from a cup instead.</p>
<p>But sugar-sweetened drinks are not the only worry when it comes to teeth. In recent years, bottled water intake in kids has increased considerably, and half of parents think bottled water may be better for teeth than tap water. More than 90% of Australians have access to fluoridated tap water, which helps strengthen teeth and prevent decay. Unlike tap water, most bottled water in Australia <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=cochrane+saranathan+dashper">contains very little fluoride</a>, making it a less healthy choice for teeth.</p>
<p>Most parents know consuming sugary food and drinks can contribute to tooth decay. But more than 70% of Australian children and adolescents exceed <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26794833">World Health Organisation</a> recommendations for sugar intake and many parents report finding it hard to know how much added sugar is in food. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/health-check-how-much-sugar-is-it-ok-to-eat-57345">Health Check: how much sugar is it OK to eat?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The recommended maximum daily intake of added sugar for children is around five teaspoons. According to parents polled, one-third of Aussie kids have sugar-sweetened drinks most days of the week, including one in five preschoolers. A 375ml can of soft drink contains around <a href="http://www.health.gov.au/internet/publications/publishing.nsf/Content/sugar-drinks-toc%7Esugar-drinks-3-fact-sheets%7Esugar-drinks-factsheet-3-3-sugar-what-drink">nine teaspoons</a> of sugar.</p>
<p>It’s not just up to parents and dentists to tackle the growing problem of child tooth decay. Other healthcare providers and policymakers have a critical role to play. We need to make sure all parents have access to the right information and support to make healthy choices for their children’s teeth every day from birth.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/92113/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anthea Rhodes is the founding director of the Royal Children's Hospital National Child Health Poll. This project receives funding from the Royal Children's Hospital Foundation.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mihiri J Silva receives funding from a postgraduate scholarship from the National Health and Medical Research Council.</span></em></p>The latest poll on children’s oral health shows many parents have misconceptions about how to prevent tooth decay in their children and don’t know of the free dental services available.Anthea Rhodes, Paediatrician and Lecturer in Child and Adolescent Health, Department of Paediatrics, The University of MelbourneMihiri Silva, Paediatric dentist and PhD candidate, Murdoch Children's Research InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/848432017-10-08T19:06:38Z2017-10-08T19:06:38ZFive things senators (and everyone else) should know about changes to HELP debts<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/188887/original/file-20171004-31791-1sts2fm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">HELP repayment arrangements have long term consequences for students and their families.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Parliament will resume on October 16, when the Senate will consider the government’s <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/higher-education-reform-package-0">proposed changes to higher education</a>. There has been a lot of discussion about many of the changes, but little about the impact of the proposed change to HELP repayments. Here are five things Senators should know.</p>
<h2>1. The HELP repayment threshold will vary according to family circumstances</h2>
<p><a href="http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/num_act/bsa2016244/sch1.html">Legislation</a> to drop the minimum HELP repayment threshold for 2018-19 from $57,730 to around $52,000 was passed by the parliament last year. The government is now proposing to further reduce it to $42,000. This is around two-thirds of annualised average weekly earnings (AWE). This threshold will not apply to everyone with a HELP debt. </p>
<p>In 1997-98, the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/archive/hecs#Table3">Howard government reduced the threshold</a> to two-thirds of AWE. At the time, it decided that a person should not have to make a repayment if they did not pay the full Medicare Levy. Seven years later, it relented and increased the threshold, but it did not remove the link with the Medicare Levy. This provision is still in the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/hesa2003271/s154.1.html">Higher Education Support Act</a>, but only families with three or more children benefit from it. The Turnbull government is not proposing to remove it.</p>
<p>The table below shows the income at which people in different family types will be paying the full Medicare Levy, and where they would start repaying their HELP debt if the government’s proposal had started in 2016-17. It also shows what these income levels will be if the Medicare levy is increased from 2% to 2.5%, as currently proposed. </p>
<hr>
<p><iframe id="iR7FS" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/iR7FS/4/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<hr>
<h2>2. HELP repayments substantially increase average effective tax rates</h2>
<p>An <a href="https://taxpolicy.crawford.anu.edu.au/publication/9083/effective-marginal-tax-rates">effective marginal tax rate</a> is the proportion of an additional dollar of earnings that is lost in additional tax and reduced government benefits.</p>
<p>It sounds reasonable to say that HELP repayments start at 1% and then gradually increase, only reaching 10% at an income of around $120,000. </p>
<p>This obscures the fact that these rates <a href="http://studyassist.gov.au/sites/studyassist/payingbackmyloan/loan-repayment/pages/loan-repayment#HowMuchWillMyRepaymentsBe">are applied to total income</a>, rather than the extra “marginal” dollar of income. HELP repayments generally increase average effective tax rates on income above the threshold by more than 13 cents in the dollar.</p>
<p>The chart below graphs the government’s proposed HELP repayment arrangement. It compares this with two alternative approaches to working out a person’s HELP repayment - one applying a 13% marginal rate and the other a 15% marginal rate, both from the $42,000 threshold. </p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/rWgYF/8/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="650"></iframe>
<hr>
<p>For people with income between $50,000 and $80,000, the proposed arrangement is about the same as making a HELP repayment of 13 cents of every dollar above the threshold. For people with income of around $120,000, it is about 15 cents of every dollar above the threshold. People with very high incomes may pay less than 13 cents in the dollar.</p>
<p>The logic for preferring this particular “step function” over a marginal rate approach is unclear. A marginal rate approach would be easier to integrate with other aspects of the tax transfer system and would remove the complexity associated with 19 separate HELP thresholds and repayment rates.</p>
<h2>3. There are significant adverse interactions with the tax-transfer system</h2>
<p>A person can experience a large loss of disposable income when their earnings increase. One reason this may occur is that they hit a HELP repayment threshold and their HELP repayment rises.</p>
<p>For example, if the Government’s proposal was in place in 2016-17, this would happen when the earnings of a person in a single income family with two children increased from $54,606 to $54,607. At this income, the person’s HELP repayments would commence at 3.5% of total income and they would be required to repay around $1,630. The one extra dollar would cause the person’s disposable income to go down.</p>
<p>This might not be much of a problem if the person’s disposable income only went down once, but that’s not what happens. For a single income family with two children, it would happen 15 times under the government’s proposed HELP repayment arrangement. </p>
<p>The disposable income of this family might also go down due to “sudden death” reductions in <a href="https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/services/centrelink/family-tax-benefit">family tax benefit</a> (FTB). FTB Part A is paid for each child and income tested, and FTB Part B gives extra help to single parents and families with one main income. At $80,000, the family loses more than $1,450 in FTB Part A supplements. At $100,000, it loses nearly $3,200 as it is no longer eligible for FTB Part B.</p>
<p>While this family is unlikely to make a decision about whether to earn one extra dollar, the parents will likely make decisions about whether it is worth working more while also trying to care for their children. They might not bother.</p>
<h2>4. Incentives to earn will be worst for single parents and single income couples</h2>
<p>The impact of the new HELP repayment arrangements on work incentives will vary according to family circumstances.</p>
<p>Currently, the government keeps around half of every extra dollar earned above the HELP threshold for a single person with no children. The government’s proposal will lift that to 50-60% of every extra dollar. The situation is much the same for a “professional” couple where both partners have high incomes.</p>
<p>For a single person with children and a single earner couple with children, the situation is much harsher. The chart below shows how the disposable income of a family with two children would increase as the earnings of a single working partner rise. </p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/pB7y6/5/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="600"></iframe>
<hr>
<p>A single person with children and a single earner in a couple with children will often have average effective tax rates of over 80% for income from their new HELP threshold of around $50,000 up to $122,000.</p>
<p>In this income range, each extra dollar results in the government receiving 32.5 or 37 cents in tax, two cents in Medicare Levy and reducing family tax benefit by 20 cents. It receives additional HELP repayments averaging between 13 and 15 cents in the dollar. It also makes savings from “sudden death” family tax benefit reductions.</p>
<p>These reductions come from government cuts aimed at removing middle class welfare. HELP repayments are being tightened for a similar reason. When governments make multiple budget cuts from different social programs they interact, sometimes producing undesirable outcomes.</p>
<p>Average effective tax rates exceeding 80% over a large range of income for a family with children seems to be a punitive and undesirable outcome. There is considerable scope for a better integration of HELP repayment arrangements with other aspects of the tax-transfer system than exists with the government’s proposal.</p>
<h2>5. It will still take students one to two decades to repay their debts</h2>
<p>There are now <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/study-and-training-support-loans/types-of-loans/">seven student loan programs</a> and most students borrow under more than one. Students study for longer than they used to and often pay full fees for “professional” postgraduate study. A two year masters course in an applied health science can add $35,000 to $50,000 in debt. A student can borrow $2,000 each year to help with study costs – a total of $10,000 over five years. </p>
<p>These schemes are administered in ways that do not draw student’s attention to how much they are borrowing or how it might affect them in future. Today’s students are unlikely to complete their higher education and enter the workforce with a HELP debt of less than $30,000. HELP debts of $45,000 to $55,000 will be more usual. Debts of $60,000 to nearly $100,000 will be common.</p>
<p>Students are likely to take a minimum of eight or nine years to repay their debts, with many taking 13-15 years, and a significant number taking close to two decades.</p>
<p>HELP repayment arrangements have long term consequences for students and their families. They will affect their living standards and ability to accumulate assets, like a home. The decisions these students take about working while they are in their 20s and 30s will affect their future income and standard of living in retirement.</p>
<p>The proposed arrangements deserve the close scrutiny of Senators.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84843/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Warburton is a part-time consultant and associate of PhillipsKPA, an education industry consulting group. He worked for Universities Australia in 2015 and prior to that was a public servant for 32 years, advising both Labor and Coalition Governments on higher education. </span></em></p>Senators should consider how repayment thresholds vary depending on family circumstances, the impacts on taxes and how long students will be saddled with debt.Mark Warburton, Honorary Senior Fellow, LH Martin Institute, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/748442017-03-29T01:07:52Z2017-03-29T01:07:52ZCuts to sole parent benefits are human rights violations<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162561/original/image-20170327-18995-13maeh8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">40% of children in sole-parent households are living below the poverty line.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Sole parents in Australia are economically vulnerable and are experiencing ongoing cuts to their social security. Legislation limiting welfare benefits that was rushed through the Senate last week will make many of them poorer – but how is this a human rights issue?</p>
<p>Australia is party to many United Nations human rights treaties, including the <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx">International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights</a>. The covenant contains a right to social security, which countries owe to everyone. It requires countries to guarantee that the rights in the covenant are upheld without discrimination. </p>
<p>The UN <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CESCR/Pages/CESCRIndex.aspx">committee</a> responsible for this treaty has explained that social security must be:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… adequate in amount and duration in order that everyone may realise his or her rights to family protection and assistance, an adequate standard of living and adequate access to health care. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The committee has stressed the principle of “non-retrogression” applies under the covenant. This means that countries may not remove rights that have been developed over time and on which people have come to depend. </p>
<p>A country can only reduce social security benefits if it can justify doing so after consulting affected groups, considering alternatives and avoiding discrimination against particular groups, and harmful impacts on the realisation of the right to social security. </p>
<p>The government will breach the rights discussed here as a result of its cuts to benefits in the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s1064">Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill</a>. The bill arose because the government refused to introduce an improved childcare package without parliament <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2017/feb/08/coalition-releases-childcare-package-compromise-in-bid-to-clear-senate-politics-live">finding budget savings elsewhere</a>. It looked to welfare, the area of the budget supporting the poorest Australians, to fund the childcare measures.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fs1064_ems_dcc97d69-0fb8-4cec-a2a9-444db0feaef0%22">A$1.6 billion</a> that these cuts generate for government are being shaved off the already inadequate support for struggling families. The legislation follows various attempts by the Coalition government since 2014 to reduce the welfare budget by removing benefits from young people, parents and other groups already facing financial hardship.</p>
<p>These have met with significant opposition from the public and in parliament. The <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-23/senate-passes-smaller-savings-to-fund-childcare-forms/8378338">government insists</a> families will not be worse off.</p>
<p>The latest changes, while certainly less harsh than earlier legislative attempts, will still have negative impacts on students and other vulnerable groups, particularly low-income families. The Family Tax Benefit indexation freeze means that while the cost of living rises, family payments will fall further behind as families effectively become poorer. </p>
<p>The bill also denies parents income support for seven days by imposing a one-week wait before accessing parenting payments.</p>
<p>Lastly, it freezes indexation of income-free areas for parenting and unemployment payments. This means recipients who work will start losing their income support payments sooner. </p>
<p>Worryingly, the government has not indicated whether it will still proceed with some of the suspended cuts to supplements – such as Family Tax Benefit, education and energy supplements – that it previously attempted to legislate.</p>
<p>The measures will worsen <a href="http://www.acoss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Poverty-in-Australia-2016.pdf">child poverty</a>, which is already high in Australia. Forty percent of children in sole-parent households are living below the poverty line. </p>
<p>Since more than 90% of sole parents are women, the measures will have a discriminatory impact on this disadvantaged group and their children. Families with children in high school who do not benefit from childcare increases will be hundreds of dollars worse off in the next two years. </p>
<p>The Australian Council of Social Service, the St Vincent de Paul Society, the National Council for Single Mothers and their Children, and the author of this article have written to the experts mandated by the UN to deal with extreme poverty, and discrimination against women, to report on this violation of Australia’s human rights commitments. </p>
<p>The correspondence points to the retrogressive impact of the new laws and previous laws on the right to social security, coupled with violations of the right to non-discrimination. The social security benefits are already not adequate for the needs of sole parent families facing hardship in this wealthy country. </p>
<p>The current bill follows earlier budget savings measures <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2012A00144">introduced</a> by the Labor government in 2013. These moved thousands of sole parents off existing payments onto the lower Newstart, resulting in significant reductions to their benefits. Parliament’s <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Human_Rights/Scrutiny_reports/2013/2013/52013/index">Joint Committee on Human Rights</a> found the government had not demonstrated that the cuts were compatible with human rights. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.10storiesofsinglemothers.org.au/who-we-are/">Single mothers</a> affected by those cuts have pointed to a range of negative impacts. These include: rental stress; growing financial insecurity and hardship; stigmatisation of their children; inability to enrol their children in sport and community activities or to pay for school excursions; psychological stress impacting on their health and capacity to work and study; and shame at having to ask others for help. </p>
<p>A 2012 letter by the welfare groups listed above resulted in <a href="https://spdb.ohchr.org/hrdb/22nd/public_-_UA_Australie_19.10.12_(2.2012).pdf">UN experts calling</a> on the government to justify its apparent rights violations. The call went unheeded. </p>
<p>The new cuts are being brought to the attention of the international experts to put on record the government’s ongoing violations of Australia’s human rights commitments and to ask them to intervene on behalf of sole-parent families facing growing poverty and inequality.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74844/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Beth Goldblatt has worked in a voluntary capacity with the Australian Council of Social Service, the National Council for Single Mothers and their Children, and the St Vincent de Paul Society in writing joint submissions to the United Nations.</span></em></p>The latest welfare changes will hurt low-income families and breach Australia’s human rights obligations.Beth Goldblatt, Associate Professor in the Faculty of Law, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/726572017-02-09T01:50:50Z2017-02-09T01:50:50ZOmnibus welfare bill shows the always-tricky politics of budget savings<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156007/original/image-20170208-9124-f7sy9a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The government claims budget savings will more than offset its additional spending on child care.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Turnbull government has introduced a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-08/omnibus-budget-savings-bill-to-be-introduced-to-parliament/8249754">new omnibus savings bill</a> to parliament. It has combined and revised several previously blocked welfare measures into a single piece of legislation to try to achieve nearly A$4 billion in net savings over the next four years. </p>
<p>This bill builds on a range of measures introduced by the Abbott and Turnbull governments. Some go all the way back to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/looking-inside-the-sausage-machine-the-budget-is-still-unfair-42407">2014 budget</a>. But they have evolved since then, particularly with bills proposed by the Turnbull government in <a href="https://theconversation.com/family-tax-benefit-savings-trimmed-but-families-with-teenagers-hit-hardest-49496">October 2015</a>.</p>
<p>By far the most significant projected savings – A$4.7 billion over the next four years – in the bill are made by phasing out end-of-year supplements for family tax benefit recipients.</p>
<p>However, there are potential risks – either to the government’s budget strategy or to its political popularity over the next four years – should these payments be phased out, or Centrelink’s new computer systems not deliver as envisaged.</p>
<h2>What else is in the bill?</h2>
<p>The omnibus bill includes the government’s <a href="http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/responsible-budget-savings-to-fund-more-affordable-child-care-for-australia">proposed changes to child care</a>. This involves about A$1.7 billion in increased spending between 2016-17 and 2019-20, including some measures not requiring legislation. </p>
<p>The most notable sweetener in the revised package is an increase in rates of family tax benefit by about A$20 per child per fortnight. This will have a much larger overall cost, of close to $2.4 billion over four years. But the government claims budget savings will more than offset these additional expenditures.</p>
<p>The bill’s <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;page=0;query=BillId%3Ar5798%20Recstruct%3Abillhome">financial impact statement</a> shows more than A$900 million will be saved through closing the Energy Supplement to new welfare recipients. Changing the age of eligibility for a range of payments will save a further A$430 million.</p>
<p>The end-of-year Family Tax Benefit A supplement, which is currently around A$730 per year per child, will be progressively cut and phased out by July 2018. The Family Tax Benefit B supplement of A$350 per year per family will also be phased out.</p>
<p>Offsetting this is the increase in fortnightly rates. But this will still mean families with combined annual incomes below A$80,000 will lose around A$200 per year per child, plus an additional A$350 per year if they are a single-earner household.</p>
<h2>Where did these payments come from?</h2>
<p>The phasing out raises the question: why did we have these end-of-year lump-sum payments as part of the family tax benefit system in the first place?</p>
<p>The Howard government introduced these payments in the <a href="http://www.formerministers.dss.gov.au/6012/budget04_overall/">2004-05 budget</a>, initially as an increase in the rate of Family Tax Benefit A of A$600 per child. This was to be paid as a lump sum upon reconciliation of entitlement following the end of the financial year.</p>
<p>The annual lump sum was available, if required, to offset any overpayment of family tax benefits that may have occurred during a previous year. </p>
<p>Some saw this as middle-class welfare, or even vote-buying, before the 2004 election. But the lump sums tackled an overpayment and debt problem the Howard government created when it introduced reforms to family payments, to compensate for the introduction of the GST in July 2000. </p>
<p>Under the previous system of family payments for low-income working families, entitlement to these payments was based on a family’s incomes in the previous financial year. There were differing ways of adjusting for changes in incomes in the year in which the payment was actually made.</p>
<p>Under the new system, payments were significantly increased. And families were given the option of taking their payments in the form of reductions in income tax paid by their employer.</p>
<p>An annual reconciliation process was introduced to ensure families who took their payments through the tax system were treated in the same way as those who received cash benefits from Centrelink.</p>
<p>Before the beginning of each financial year families were asked to estimate what their income would be in the subsequent tax year. After they filed their tax returns there was an end-of-year reconciliation. This meant families received extra payments if they had overestimated their incomes, but incurred debts if they had underestimated their incomes and been overpaid. </p>
<p>This end-of-year reconciliation made the system more responsive to changes in income and allowed people who had been underpaid to receive top-ups. However, the system’s greater responsiveness led to a very large increase in debts. </p>
<p>Before the system’s introduction, just over 50,000 families had debts at the end of each year. But in the new system’s first year it is estimated around 670,000 families had been overpaid. </p>
<p>This led to <a href="https://www.jrf.org.uk/file/36835/download?token=wR_72oK9">considerable media and political controversy</a> throughout 2001 and 2002. In July 2001, just before an important byelection, the Howard government announced the waiver of the first A$1,000 of all overpayments. This reduced the number with debts to around 200,000 families.</p>
<p>There was further fine-tuning in 2002. And an Ombudsman’s report in 2003 concluded that, despite previous adjustments, the system would be likely to continue to result in significant numbers of unavoidable debts, and that the government should consider further policy changes.</p>
<h2>Potential perils ahead</h2>
<p>The controversy seems to have died down since the introduction of the end-of-year supplements in 2004. However, the Turnbull government’s proposal to phase out the payments implies that it considers the overpayment problem has been solved.</p>
<p>Here, the issue has some apparent parallels with the <a href="https://theconversation.com/note-to-centrelink-australian-workers-lives-have-changed-70946">Centrelink debt controversy</a> – which seems likely to be subjected to a <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/greens-and-labor-to-move-for-senate-inquiry-on-centrelink-automated-debt-systems-20170207-gu7h3s.html">Senate inquiry</a>. </p>
<p>There are important differences, however. Entitlement to income-support payments is primarily based on fortnightly income, whereas entitlement to family payments is based on annual income.</p>
<p>Why the government thinks the overpayments and the subsequent debt problem will be resolved so that the lump-sum payments can be phased out is not entirely clear. But it appears to reflect the <a href="https://www.itnews.com.au/news/cabinet-approves-1bn-centrelink-systems-upgrade-402586">2015 update of Centrelink’s computer systems</a>.</p>
<p>Complementing this are proposed changes in reporting systems to the Australian Tax Office (ATO), particularly the introduction of the <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/general/new-legislation/in-detail/other-topics/single-touch-payroll/">“Single Touch Payroll” system</a>. This will mean that when employers pay their staff, the employees’ salary and pay-as-you-go withholding amounts will be automatically reported to the ATO, which can then share this data with Centrelink.</p>
<p>So, what the government appears to be assuming is that computer and system updates will provide a “technological fix” to the problem of family tax benefit overpayments – and thus it will be able to save A$4.7 billion over the next four years. But this may not occur if the new computer systems <a href="http://www.canberratimes.com.au/money/tax/tax-time-in-danger-from-atos-tech-wreck-20170207-gu7a98">are not working</a> in the ways envisaged.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72657/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Whiteford has received funding from the Australian Research Council. He is affiliated with the Centre for Policy Development. </span></em></p>By far the most significant projected savings in the government’s omnibus bill is the phasing out of end-of-year supplements for family tax benefit recipients.Peter Whiteford, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/726752017-02-08T10:28:51Z2017-02-08T10:28:51ZTurnbull’s rant about Shorten a treat for the troops but will it play with the public?<p>After Malcolm Turnbull called Bill Shorten a “social-climbing sycophant”, a “parasite”, and a “hypocrite” in parliament on Wednesday, Liberal Party director Tony Nutt tweeted a link, so people could watch Turnbull “tell the truth” about Shorten.</p>
<p>The Liberals obviously think Turnbull’s extraordinary harangue will go down well with Mr and Mrs Suburbia. Victorian senator James Paterson told 2GB it was “great to see a bit of steel from the PM, I think that’s exactly what the people want”.</p>
<p>Maybe. But it is equally possible ordinary people might see this as another example of just what they dislike about politics. Nutt has been around long enough to recall the experience of Paul Keating. Insiders loved his colourful tirades, insulting and demolishing opponents. But the voters came to hate them.</p>
<p>Turnbull went boots and all for the personal onslaught after Shorten attempted to move a motion against “Mr Harbourside Mansion”, claiming he was “attacking the standard of living of over a million Australian families” with an omnibus bill which includes big savings in social security as well as reform of the childcare system.</p>
<p>The speech was notable for its sheer quantity of sustained abuse.</p>
<p>“We have just heard from that great sycophant of billionaires, the leader of the opposition,” Turnbull said. “All the lectures, trying to run a politics of envy – when he was a regular dinner guest at Raheen, always there with Dick Pratt, sucking up to Dick Pratt. Did he knock back the Cristal [champagne]? I don’t think so.</p>
<p>"There was never a union leader in Melbourne that tucked his knees under more billionaire’s tables than the leader of the opposition. He lapped it up!</p>
<p>"He was such a sycophant, a social-climbing sycophant if ever there was one. There has never been a more sycophantic leader of the Labor Party than this one and he comes here and poses as a tribune of the people.</p>
<p>"Harbourside mansions – he’s yearning for one! He is yearning to get into Kirribilli House. You know why? Because somebody else pays for it.</p>
<p>"Just like he loved knocking back Dick Pratt’s Cristal, just as he looked forward to living in luxury at the expense of the taxpayer. This man is a parasite.</p>
<p>"He has no respect for the taxpayer. He has no respect for the taxpayer any more than he has respect for the members of the Australian Workers Union he betrayed again and again. He sold them out.”</p>
<p>Quoting Shorten’s words of some years ago that lowering company tax assisted job creation, Turnbull said: “I reckon he probably talked about that with Dick Pratt and Solly Lew and Lindsay Fox and all the other billionaires he liked sucking up to in Melbourne, on their corporate jets”.</p>
<p>“Or did he give them the blast, the good attack on the rich, down with anyone that has got a quid. … I don’t think so.</p>
<p>"No, I think he just sucked up to them … I think he says one thing here and another thing in the comfortable lounge rooms of Melbourne …</p>
<p>"No consistency, no integrity … This simpering sycophant. Blowing hard in the House of Representatives, sucking hard in the living rooms of Melbourne. What a hypocrite!”</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"829199706333003776"}"></div></p>
<p>Turnbull has many faces but this is not the one most people would have expected when he overthrew that aggressive verbal boxer Tony Abbott. He stood for another political style.</p>
<p>So what’s made him flick the switch to nasty?</p>
<p>He’s been obviously stung by Shorten’s adoption of the “Mr Harbourside mansion” handle that Peta Credlin, Abbott’s former chief-of-staff, attached to him before the election. After Shorten again tossed the term out last week, he reacted angrily.</p>
<p>Also Turnbull must be seriously discombobulated by a dreadful start to the year, including <a href="https://theconversation.com/newspoll-shows-coalition-trailing-46-54-at-start-of-new-parliamentary-session-72479">this week’s bad Newspoll</a> followed by the defection of Cory Bernardi to set up a conservative party.</p>
<p>Turnbull knows his followers are uneasy. Nothing like a red meat speech, delivered with his superior barrister’s skill, to provide them with a short-term adrenaline rush.</p>
<p>But closer to the interests of the average voters than Wednesday’s hyperbole around it will be the <a href="http://christianporter.dss.gov.au/media-releases/responsible-budget-savings-to-fund-more-affordable-child-care-for-australian-families">actual measures in the omnibus bill</a>, which includes a reworking of certain earlier initiatives in an effort to massage them through the Senate. A lot of people stand to be affected, positively or negatively, by the content of this enormous bill.</p>
<p>The childcare reforms, designed to boost workforce participation, are as they were proposed previously. The government says the changes would give about 1 million families “relief from out-of-pocket child care cost pressures” and “encourage more than 230,000 families to increase their involvement in paid employment”.</p>
<p>Also in the bill are savings of more than A$5.5 billion, including changes to the family tax benefit (FTB) system and to paid parental leave provisions.</p>
<p>But the government has softened its proposals in both these areas, to accommodate crossbench senators.</p>
<p>Thus, while it still would phase out FTB end-of-year supplements, it would double to $20 the maximum fortnightly payment rates of FTB Part A. It has also abandoned its planned scaling back of FTB Part B for children between 13 and 16.</p>
<p>And it will increase from 18 to 20 the maximum number of weeks the government’s paid parental leave scheme provides.</p>
<p>The concessions will reduce the savings the government would originally have got by about $2.4 billion.</p>
<p>But as “cameos” flew from government and opposition about how individual families would be affected, Shorten said that “the prime minister is taking $2.7 billion from Australian families and yet he proposes giving $7.4 billion to big banks in tax giveaways”.</p>
<p>“We draw a line in the sand on this $2.7 billion cut to family payments. We are not buying it and the Australian people are not buying it,” he told parliament.</p>
<p>The omnibus legislation also includes other leftovers from past attempts to tighten social security, among them various pension-related savings and the four-week waiting period for unemployed young people seeking income support payments.</p>
<p>The government seems confident it has a set of measures it can “land” in parliament. But there will likely be more trade-offs required for that to happen, amid a good deal of noise from those who stand to lose.</p>
<p>The package will need better salesmanship than on Wednesday, when the mass of detail had it struggling to be understood – and then it was overshadowed by the Turnbull rant.</p>
<iframe src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/8vd69-67798f?from=yiiadmin" data-link="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/8vd69-67798f?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe>
<iframe src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/zf38q-677342?from=yiiadmin" data-link="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/zf38q-677342?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72675/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
After Malcolm Turnbull called Bill Shorten a “social-climbing sycophant”, a “parasite”, and a “hypocrite” in parliament on Wednesday, Liberal Party director Tony Nutt tweeted a link, so people could watch…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.