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

The member for Rankin does not like to look at the record of his party when it was in government before 1996, because a single-income family receiving average weekly earnings with one child in 20 hours of care was paying 5.8 per cent of its weekly net income in 1995 compared with 3.9 per cent in 2004. However, the situation is even more pronounced for families using family day care. A sole parent receiving parenting payments and studying paid 2.8 per cent of their weekly net income in 1995 under a Labor government, which rails long and hard about child-care costs. In 2004, in the same situation, it was 0.3 per cent—and that is before the government’s child-care tax rebate of up to $4,000 comes into play from 1 July. So when the Labor Party stands up here and preaches to the coalition government about the cost of child care, it should look at the real statistics, the real facts: child care today, even before the child-care tax rebate is introduced, is more affordable than it was under a Labor government. There are also twice as many places as there were then.

The member for Rankin also said that he was strongly supportive of these measures today, and of the family payment system. And well may he be supportive, because he went to the last poll supporting a Labor platform that was going to make many constituents in his electorate worse off with the changes to the family tax benefit system. That is a statement of fact. They were simply going to make some of the hardest done by families on around $35,000 worse off. So I applaud him for changing sides in this argument, for recognising that not one individual family was going to be worse off and that everyone was going to be better off under the coalition. The Labor Party actually sought to make some Australian families doing it the toughest worse off. It beggars belief, but that is a statement of fact. The bill before us today builds on the success of the Howard government’s principal support that we put into the family and ensures that Australian families have real benefits, real cash in their pockets to make the decisions that they need to and that the choices they make are the best for their families.

The member for Rankin made one other comment in the dying stages of his speech. I am not wishing to pick on the member for Rankin; I just happened to be here to hear his contribution. He referred to early childhood learning. I agree with him that it is important that we ensure that children get the best education possible, and those formative years are key. I would ask him to turn to his state Labor colleagues in New South Wales, who are spending just on $100 per child in preschool. There are fewer children in preschool in New South Wales than in any other state. In his and my own state of Queensland it is well into the 90s, and that is a good thing. The state Labor government there are about to bring down their budget and they have trumpeted the fact that they are going to increase the amount of spending in this area, bringing it up to still well below the national average and nothing like best practice. It is a disgrace. It is something that they should fix immediately. They should adopt the coalition’s policy in New South Wales—that is, providing a preschool place for these young children and giving those families the best opportunity in life. If they were to do that, and bring it up to a decent benchmark, it would actually free up child-care places for those who need it and put young children into a formal learning environment where we all agree they will get the best chance in life. Unfortunately, the state Labor government in New South Wales has continued to abrogate its responsibilities.

The member for Banks wandered widely from the debate and got into Indigenous affairs. He referred to me as a ‘boy’. I will take that as a compliment. I must look younger than I am! But he also said that he has sat in the sand with Aboriginal people. I applaud him for actually taking the time, when he was shadow minister, to listen to Indigenous people. But can I say that, if he has not seen the pain and the suffering that the failed policies of self-determination, of believing land rights were somehow going to fix all the problems, then he did not sit in the sand; he has had his head stuck in the sand. He needs to pull his head out of the sand. He needs to have a look at the pain and suffering that these people are telling me and others about. He should look at the reports that he refers to and admit that what has gone before has not worked: ATSIC did not work, self-determination did not work. Let us go to a new system, which is old—the oldest system of all—and that is saying that the rights of every child and every woman should be upheld, that a criminal justice system should work for all and not some and that law and order is a fundamental right of every civilised society and every individual in Australia. You do not get that by denying the mistakes of the past and the consequences of them.

This is a very positive bill before the House. I remind all members that, under the Howard government, when we talk today about reducing the marginal tax rate that people are paying, we should keep in mind that a family with two children aged three and eight, on average weekly earnings of around $53,500 today, will have a net tax threshold of $48,000. Out of a total income coming into the house of $53,534, that family will actually have $52,024 to spend on the things that are important to them—a net tax bill of just over $1,500. That is real reform. You cannot lower that tax much further. In fact, you can only lower it effectively by $1,510. The reality is that the Howard government has delivered for families in spades and will continue to do so because we recognise they are genuinely the foundation that builds a strong society. Giving them the resources to be able to buy their own homes, to be able to school their children, to do all the things that are important to a functioning society is based on their capacity to do so, including their financial capacity as delivered through jobs and a tax system. We should never forget that 1.7 million more Australians are in jobs today than they were under Labor. They actually have choices that they did not have, they are paying less tax and they have higher real wages. That is a wonderful combination, which has given them far greater confidence in their futures than they had in the bleak years between 1983 and 1995.

These measures build on the successes of the last 10 years by giving real choice to families. Families on incomes up to $40,000—up from $33,361—will receive family tax benefit part A. This effectively means an additional $9.80 a week in the pay packets of around half a million Australian families to spend as they feel necessary. This equates to around $993 million in additional assistance over four years. It includes $86 million for increased eligibility for health care cards for another 35,000 families, giving them security and confidence that the health system is working for them.

Families with three children will also receive an additional boost. Governments have always recognised that large families need additional resources, and families with four children have been eligible for the large-family supplement. We have reduced that to three children, ensuring that families with three or more children receive an additional $248 per child annually. This is another benefit that recognises the additional costs and extra responsibilities of families.

In this bill we have also looked after a group of people who do it very tough—the resident parent whose former partner has not made the appropriate child support payments but makes those payments in a subsequent tax year. This is an unfortunate circumstance which happens all too often. In the past, we would have looked at the resident parent’s income and said: ‘Sorry, you are now over the threshold. Even though you were owed that money, at a time when you were eligible for it because your income was low, you will not receive it.’ There is an amendment in this bill to ensure that, even though their income has now increased, they will receive the income support that the non-resident parent was due to provide to them at the time when they had a lower household income and were eligible for it. This will be welcomed by many families. It gives greater credibility to the child support system and it will increase the family tax benefit entitlements of these people.

A further measure in this bill, as announced by the government in the 2006 budget, is a one-off payment for certain older Australians equal to the annual utilities allowance of $102.80. I heard the member for Shortland say, ‘It is only $102.80.’ To all those Australians who are going to be receiving this—including those receiving mature age allowance, widow allowance and partner allowance who in the past have not received the utilities allowance but will now be beneficiaries—it is $102.80 over and above anything they received from the Labor Party when they were in government. There simply was no utilities payment at that time.

We introduced that payment for self-funded retirees because we could not come to an agreement with the states. The states would not give self-funded retirees the same benefits they bestow on pensioners in the form of some of the concessions. After my predecessors unsuccessfully negotiated long and hard for many years to ensure that self-funded retirees would receive the same benefits as pensioners, the government made an election commitment that we would make this payment directly to self-funded retirees and that they too would benefit from this additional one-off payment. We have now implemented that.

We are all too well aware that, unfortunately, we are beset by both natural and unnatural disasters. We have had the Bali bombings, the Asian tsunami, the London bombings, the Eyre Peninsula fires and Cyclone Larry—to mention just a few. In these times the great Australian spirit shines through and many Australians donate money to these causes recognising the hardship of fellow Australians and even people overseas, as they did with the tsunami. The government flies into action to try to provide support in a very practical sense. As part of that, we have provided for a disaster recovery payment in this bill. This will formalise ex gratia payments to assist Australians in these disasters, whether they be onshore or offshore. Initially, people affected by a disaster will be able to claim $1,000 for themselves and $400 for each child in their care. Not only is this a positive measure but it also ensures that we put into law what has in the past been done in an ad hoc fashion. I am sure it will be supported by all sides.

This bill ensures that for the first time the carer payment will be available to parents of children with severe intellectual, psychiatric or behavioural disabilities. This will simplify the system and ensure that some people will now be able to access the carer payment under the expanded eligibility criteria. I do not think there would be a person in this House who does not understand the role that carers play, the compassion they show and their commitment to their loved ones. It is recognised by everyone in this place, and I am sure that everyone will appreciate this improvement in the bill and its practical implications for those individuals.

Families are often concerned about what is going to happen to their disabled loved ones when the carers pass away. We are introducing in this bill a new provision which will allow immediate family members to establish a special disability trust for the current and future care of severely disabled persons. Severely disabled persons social security payment such as the disability support pension will now not be affected by any trust income or trust assets up to the value of $500,000. Also, gifts to the trust to a total of $500,000 from immediate family members of age pension age will not affect the donor’s social security payments. This is a relaxation of the Social Security Act and Veterans’ Entitlements Act provisions which limit the assets a person can hold or give away without affecting their entitlement to payments. In a very practical way this will give comfort to a number of older Australians who are very fearful of the life that their loved one—in most cases, their child—is going to have when they are no longer in a position to look after them. This will give them the comfort of knowing they can purchase for them the style of care they deserve and that they would wish for them. I am sure that many Australians will take up and recognise the benefits that this practical measure will bestow upon them.

There are many positive measures in this bill, and it also contains some consequential provisions. I will complete my address by reminding those opposite that all of these positive measures for assisting families, carers, older Australians and people trying to provide for their disabled children once their parents have passed away are only possible because we have a strong economy. We have been able to run budget surpluses and more Australians are in work. Therefore these measures are the dividend that we can provide back to the Australian public. It can only go on if we continue to work hard to ensure that the economy grows strongly and job creation is maintained, and that is what the Howard government is committed to. This bill really is the result of 10 years of hard work, and the dividends go back to the Australians who deserve them most. 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