Ms GEORGE (9:40 AM) —I take this opportunity to raise an issue of serious concern to me and a number of my constituents who have visited the electorate office to complain about the impact of a very flawed system of family payments. We need to understand that many of the people and families in Throsby are low-income earners and that a high level of retrenchment occurs in the area.

What worries me is that the Minister for Family and Community Services has conceded that there are problems in the system. However, she describes them as mere `teething problems', whereas I believe that the system is fundamentally flawed, and it is leading to a situation where honest and hardworking people are being made to feel that they have done something wrong, when it is in fact the system that is leading to an appalling burden, particularly for low income families.

The system is obviously flawed because we now have about half a billion dollars of outstanding debt. I do not know how high the debt level would have to rise before the minister conceded that it was a genuine problem, not merely a teething problem. It is particularly outrageous that only one in five families was advised before the election that they would be likely to sustain a debt burden. Of course, we had the $1,000 waiver, and a lot of families believed that would be the end of the story. They are now finding out that the system is continuing to punish them, even though they are doing the right thing and advising Centrelink of any changes in their employment situation.

Let me give the chamber two examples of what I am talking about. The Miller family in the electorate of Throsby was essentially a single-income earning-family, and the wife went out to get some part-time work. The family notified Centrelink but, despite doing everything by the book, the family is now being slugged with a debt of $1,700 on top of the $1,000 waiver. I think that is an absolutely appalling situation. For the minister to describe this system as one that is going through teething problems is beyond the pale.

Another example: as I said, the area is known for high levels of unemployment and possible retrenchments. In the case of the Hill family, the husband was retrenched. Of course, you cannot predict the possibility of retrenchment. They were not able to advise Centrelink in advance that the husband would be receiving a retrenchment payout. So here we have a family saddled with debt. On top of retrenchment, they now have a burden of $1,800. It is time the minister recognised the seriousness of the situation. (Time expired)