Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

in reply—I thank all those members who contributed to the debate tonight. The Family Assistance, Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2005 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2006 will amend the family assistance law, the social security law and the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 to implement several measures announced in last year’s budget and some other current initiatives. These measures will be particularly important to Australian families and those helping to support themselves in retirement. Families will gain a higher rate of family tax benefit through an increase in the lower income threshold from $33,361 to $37,500 from 1 July this year. The new threshold will keep its value by being indexed according to the CPI on every following 1 July. This is substantially more than would have occurred through annual indexation. The bill will also reduce family tax benefit and child-care benefit debts by improving the way customers’ estimates of income are managed in working out their entitlements. These new provisions will also take effect from 1 July 2006. This will allow estimates of income for the current income year.

The bill contains two further measures relating to child care. Under the first, the distribution of the available child-care places will actually be enhanced by allowing the transfer of child-care places from areas with lower demand to areas of higher demand. Second, from 1 July this year the recovery of child-care benefit debts will be improved by more closely aligning the recovery methods currently available with those available for family tax benefits. In particular, a customer’s child-care benefit debts will be recoverable by applying the customer’s or a consenting person’s tax refund.

From 1 July 2006 the bill standardises the backdating provision for carers allowance to allow for a maximum backdating period of 12 weeks before the claim is lodged, whether the carer is caring for an adult or a child. I commend and I thank the Senate committee for its work in reviewing this legislation. They made a very valid point in suggesting that the government ensure that the medical fraternity are aware of this particular provision so that parents of young children in particular who are in need of this carer allowance are aware of it at the time that they are seeing their doctor in relation to the condition of their loved one. In doing so, we want to be able to ensure that those parents are aware of and access that payment at the earliest possible time. I might add that this measure has been introduced to align with other backdating provisions, because in the past there were very awkward and difficult conditions that carers and parents generally had to adhere to in determining whether or not a child was eligible for this payment. Those measures have been removed.

The bill makes various social security and veterans’ entitlement amendments flowing from the government’s response to the review of pension provisions by small superannuation funds. In part these amendments extend the term of market linked income streams and life expectancy income streams so that payments may continue to the member or spouse to age 100. Similarly, if the member or spouse has a life expectancy greater than 100, the greater age will be allowed for. These amendments also allow customers to vary annual market linked income stream payments by amounts between plus and minus 10 per cent. This will actually help them average out their income and allow the income stream to satisfy them throughout their retirement. The bill makes many other minor amendments in this area, including an enhancement to the operation of the income stream rules and allowing certain non-superannuation annuities to be split as part of a divorce property settlement.

Finally, the bill amends the social security law and family assistance law as they relate to payments being made overseas, known as portability. This will be welcomed throughout Australia for those who need it, which unfortunately is often due to illness of children where they have to go and receive assistance overseas.

I have a couple of very quick observations on the contributions of the opposition. Many took the opportunity to speak to the bill with regard to family tax benefit and their belief that it is inappropriate. I simply say to the members of the opposition that it is still current Labor policy not to support the family tax supplement. The last time anyone spoke about it was to say that it was not real money. I would invite them to revisit that and look at changing their policy into the future.

The member for Throsby just spoke at length about ABC Learning Centres, a private provider of child care, basically suggesting that the profits they are making are obscene. It also must be noted that it is the for-profit sector and the capital that they have injected that has provided the additional places. Their growth is largely the reason the number of places in child care have doubled in the term of this government, as has expenditure. She clearly would prefer not-for-profits to be running the sector. While she said that these profits were obscene, she also said she had heard that predatory pricing—dropping the pricing for mothers—was in fact impacting upon some of the not-for-profit centres in her electorate. It would just seem to be a totally contrary argument: on the one hand having lower prices, forcing people out, and on the other hand saying that there are these obscene profits.

She also mentioned standards. I remind her that licensing is in fact a state requirement. The states look at and determine staff ratios. So if the member for Throsby thinks that the staff ratios are inappropriate, she should be taking this up with her state colleagues. I do not believe she will do that. In fact, I am absolutely certain that she will not do that with any conviction. They are also the ones that determine how much space each child should have and the size of the building. It is not the federal government. Therefore, if the member for Throsby has arguments on those issues, the appropriate people for her to take up these issues are her state colleagues.

Finally, in relation to the Labor Party’s comments tonight about freeing places up, I understand that the Labor Party’s policy at the last election was to include about 8,000 additional outside of school hours places. The federal government’s was 84,300—tenfold. The reality is that there is another round to be undertaken shortly. Far from being iron fisted and very restrictive, my aim is to ensure that the places go to where they are needed and that parents as they elect to take up their option to return to work have the options in which to do it. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

See this speech in context