Senator MARK BISHOP (2:00 PM) — My question is to the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Vanstone. Can the minister explain why a family, where one parent earns $20,000 for half of a financial year while the other stays home to care for their children full time and where they then swap roles for the second half of the year, would be eligible for family tax benefit B for the first six months but incur a year-end debt at the end of the financial year, even when they have immediately notified Centrelink of their changed financial arrangements? Does the minister acknowledge that a family with one parent earning the equivalent of $40,000 a year and the other earning nothing should qualify for family payments? Minister, wouldn't a family in these circumstances be unable to avoid incurring an overpayment, even if they played by the rules and updated their estimates at all times?

Senator VANSTONE (Minister for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women) —I thank the senator for his question. Senator, I was listening fairly carefully to your question, but I will take the opportunity to get you some detailed advice on that family. I would, of course, appreciate it if you could give me an example of the situation that you raise. I say that because yesterday the cases of two families were raised in this place and, as you know, both you and the other senator who raised this issue received a fax from my office indicating that we were happy to pursue these matters but asking whether we could have the details of the families.

We asked this because it is often the case—and I understand this—that a family who feels they have been wronged in one way or another comes to a senator or lower house member and puts their case. Of course, whenever you are advocating a case you advocate it as best you can, and you do not necessarily mention the other points which might not augment your position terribly effectively. So I indicated—and senators will have heard me do this before—that I am very reluctant to respond to individual circumstances. I have yet to have a response. I have had an indication from either you, Senator Bishop, or Senator Lundy, that this request, in which I said, `Who are these families? We will have a look at the files and we will have a debate,' has been passed on to Mr Swan. The silence from Mr Swan's office has been quite deafening.

I have had the opportunity to have a look at a family that I believe to be one of the families concerned. I will give you the example, because if this is one of the families concerned—and they certainly fit the bill— the clear indication yesterday was that this family had done everything by the book, always notified Centrelink of their income changes and yet had been saddled with a debt. This family indicated at the beginning of the year that they expected to have a $20,000 income for one partner and no income for the other. Then for one period of time they decided to say that the income would actually be closer to $40,000 for the main breadwinner and $17,000 for the second income earner. That family did that for one month and then, surprisingly, went back down to indicating an income of $13,000 for one partner and just over $16,000 for the other.

The last estimate from that family, on 23 January, was that they would have a $26,000 income for the year. I ask you to consider this, Senator Bishop: that family, at that point, must have earned $13,000, because that is half of an income. So they were going to earn another $13,000 in the remainder of the year. But guess what, Senator? They ended up with an income of almost $42,000, which means you had to earn nearly $29,000 in the remaining six months, which means that a family that was on a $26,000 income suddenly found a $56,000 job.

Senator Hutchins —And your point is?

Senator VANSTONE —I am sorry, I thought it was pretty obvious: a family tells us they have a $26,000 income and they end up with a $41,000 or $42,000 income. I think the point is obvious, Senator.

Senator MARK BISHOP —I am not so sure it is obvious. Mr President, I ask a supplementary question to the Minister for Family and Community Services arising from the original question. Is the minister aware that a Canberra family, whose accountant lodged their 2000-01 tax return three days after the government's top-up deadline of 30 June this year, missed out on $2,000 worth of family payments? Is the minister aware of any other payments available through the tax system that have such short cut-off dates? And how does such an inflexible application of a deadline fit with this government's generous provision of corporate welfare to the big end of town?

Senator VANSTONE (Minister for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women) —I will leave aside your version of `corporate welfare to the top end of town', Senator Bishop—you can tell other people what you mean by that. The simple fact is, Senator, that the family tax benefit is an extremely generous payment. We have families getting $30,000 and $40,000 tax free, with a lot more, I admit, getting around $20,000. If they want us to rely on their estimates to keep paying them, all we require is that they put in a tax return so that we can do the reconciliation, and they have 12 months to do that. Families that do it late do not get a top-up; you can hardly complain about that—your previous government never gave top-ups. We will give top-ups to families but, of course, within 12 months you have to get around to putting in your tax return. In exchange for a terribly generous benefit, one we will pay you on your estimate and reconcile at the end of the year, we do not believe it is too much to ask that you put in your tax return within 12 months.