Couples should get less family help in proposed welfare restructure: ACOSS, charities Welfare groups want a restructure of family support payments as a way of fighting poverty. COUPLES should be kicked off Family Tax Benefit B payments once their child turns 13 to recognise there's no reason both parents should not be working, according to welfare groups. The Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) and charities have come together to demand a restructure of family support payments to address the fact nearly 600,000 children are living in poverty - a 15 per cent increase in the past year. ACOSS chief executive Cassandra Goldie said the groups supported help for low and middle-income families, but more should be available for the poorest. The groups - including the Smith Family, St Vincent de Paul and Anglicare - suggest the Baby Bonus and School Kids Bonus be replaced with increases to Family Tax Benefit A payments for preschool and school-aged children. The Baby Bonus will already be scrapped and the Coalition plans to end the School Kids Bonus, but charities are scathing that saving will go towards company tax cuts. It's also suggested Family Tax Benefit Part B for sole parents be replaced with a supplement paid at higher rates as a child ages to recognise the demands faced by single parents. And couples should be kicked off the Family Tax Benefit Part B once their child turns 13, rather than the current age of 18. That means-tested payment is to help families with two parents on a sole income. But Dr Goldie said there was no real reason a stay-at-home parent should get that help once their child was a teenager. "This (change) is to recognise that in the same way as there is a lot of discussion about the importance of participation in the paid workforce, generally ... once your children are in high school, in full-time education, the question mark is do you need to continue to receive a supplement when you are no longer caring for your children at home," Dr Goldie said. This is to make sure that we well target and we get our priorities right. Based on modelling, the groups estimate the changes would mean half of low income families - about 600,000 - would be $1300 a year better off.