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

It is good to see that the member for Throsby recognises that; I appreciate it. The bill provides the legislative basis for five measures announced in the 2007 budget for the Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs portfolio. It furthers the government’s commitment to older Australians by increasing the flexibility of the Pension Bonus Scheme. This has come about because people have asked us to make the system more flexible and to work for them. They like the system—it is enabling them to work up to the age of 70—but they felt there were things we could do. The government has listened and I will outline some of those measures.

In this bill, we have also extended the allowances for multiple births. One woman in my electorate is quoted on the front page of the Courier-Mail as saying that she was so excited she could not sleep all night. It shows you how much it means to people. To have that additional cost is a bit of a difficult thing as a parent. We had two sets of hands, two sets of feet and mum and dad, and when we had our third child—separately—it was wow! To have three come along at one time is a massive effort, and I take my hat off to those parents, who do a fantastic job. The measure I will outline here is very important for that as well.

Lastly, the bill expands the crisis payment to humanitarian entrants to Australia and it simplifies and improves the operation and integrity of the Assurance of Support program.

The Australian government spends more on the age pension than on any other single program—around $24,000 million next financial year in pension payments to around two million Australians. An important part of this program is the Pension Bonus Scheme, which supports older Australians who choose to remain in the workforce beyond retirement age. Older Australians who defer their age pension and take advantage of the scheme may be entitled to a one-off tax-free payment of up to around $32,000 for a single person—when we first introduced this, it was set at $25,000 for a single person—and $27,000 for each member of a couple. It is paid when they eventually claim and receive the age pension.

This bill will make the Pension Bonus Scheme even better and more flexible in four central ways. Firstly, a new pension bonus top-up will be payable to people whose retirement investments are not settled until shortly after grant of their age pension and bonus to get the most out of their bonus. The top-up will be made available to eligible persons if their pension rate increases within 13 weeks after being granted because their income or assets have decreased.

Secondly, a new pension bonus bereavement payment is introduced to allow for any bonus that is accrued but not claimed by a scheme member who dies to be paid to their surviving partner. I recall the member for Hasluck speaking to me about a very distressing case of a spouse who died after completing the five years, or that close to it. The couple went to the doctor and the spouse was told, ‘You don’t have a great life expectancy,’ and unfortunately in this particular case that was only too accurate. The person had fulfilled almost all of their obligations but had simply not had the chance to say to Centrelink, ‘I want to cash in my chips.’ Unfortunately, in that circumstance the person passed away. That is not what this was about; it was about supporting people who made these choices. This flexibility and this change will ensure that those circumstances no longer prevail.

Thirdly, flexibility around non-accruing membership of the scheme is increased by providing the government with the power to make a legislative instrument that will allow members to be recognised retrospectively as non-accruing members of the scheme. This is intended to allow members who are involved in unforeseen incidents, such as natural disasters, to stay in the scheme, despite having failed the scheme’s work test for a period. Lastly, when people do fail to meet the work test, there will be greater discretion for the usual 13-week claim lodgement period to be extended. Therefore, special circumstances, such as a serious illness of a close family member, can be taken into account if a person is late in claiming.

A further measure, which is targeted at older Australians but which will affect the income and assets test for all social security payment recipients, is that the existing social security income and assets test exemption threshold for funeral investments will be increased from $5,000 to $10,000 for individuals and couples. In simple terms, this means that people who choose to invest in this way will not have their investments assessed as an asset when their rate of social security payment is calculated. Unlike the old threshold, the new threshold will be indexed in line with inflation so that it maintains its real value. This measure is also designed to allow individuals or couples to have a second funeral bond, subject to exemption, so that those with existing bonds can take advantage of the new threshold.

Before moving on to other measures in the bill, I would just like to answer some of the criticisms by the member for Jagajaga, who in relation to this issue was making the point of how tough it is for pensioners today. I am the first to say that we should do all we possibly can to help those people who have grown and contributed to the Australian economy, particularly during tougher times—particularly when they were in the workforce and had to put up with the sorts of taxation rates experienced under previous Labor governments, such as 50c in the dollar. Today, after being able to drive down tax rates and help people when they work to keep more in their pocket, the pensioner who is no longer in the labour force does not necessarily see that as benefiting them. They had to go through those tougher times under a much harsher regime of higher taxation under Labor governments.

What we can tell them, and what I can tell the member for Jagajaga, is that one of the really important initiatives that the Howard government brought in very early in its term was to index pensions twice a year to male total average weekly earnings—25 per cent of it. As a result, with the pensioner supplement, the pensioner bonus and the utilities allowance, that equates to a pensioner this financial year having $2,803 more in their pocket than they otherwise would have had. That is an extraordinary difference from where they were and we are very proud of it. A single maximum rate pensioner will be $2,803 better off than they would have been had the old system remained in place under the Labor government. That is about $107 a fortnight. That is real money that makes a real difference.

I would also ask the members who sit opposite, who have suddenly found the plight of seniors to be of concern, whether they could turn their attention to their Labor colleagues. One would hope they would have some influence with their Labor colleagues. Perhaps the Tasmanian members could ask the Tasmanian Labor government what they will do about helping pensioners not have to pay for the new ambulance service. Pensioners and healthcare card holders will not be exempt from that fee; they will have to pay it. They will have to find that money. Sure, the Howard government has given them a $500 bonus and that may help. However, if the Labor Party is really serious about helping pensioners with their costs, perhaps the Tasmanian members could do that. That is a cost of $690. Well may you exhale in such a way, Mr Deputy Speaker Barresi. Furthermore, in Melbourne the cost of water will double over the next five years. That is not something that pensioners can avoid. That is extra money that they will have to find for the absolute basics in life. But it is Labor governments that are doing these things to them.

The Labor government in New South Wales—I am sure that the minister at the table would be interested in this—has slugged families with a $100 rise in their electricity bills. That is according to the Daily Telegraph of 15 June this year. That, of course, will impact on older Australians. They will have to find that money. I think probably the worst thing that the New South Wales government has done is something that as minister you get a lot of letters about—sometimes saying how fantastic it is but sometimes asking for it to be improved—and that is people making use of reduced fees and sometimes free tickets when using trains. The New South Wales Labor government has seen fit to increase the cost of train travel for seniors by introducing a 15 per cent booking fee on CountryLink trains in New South Wales. That will have a detrimental impact both on elderly people or pensioners but also on business. In the rural areas, particularly where they are doing it tough in drought, there is no way that pensioners will be out spending, because of this unnecessary burden that has been placed on them by yet another state Labor government. That means it will cost a minimum of $10 for a single ticket and $20 for a return fare—and for pensioners such travel is supposed to be free. That is the Labor Party’s idea of free.

They are just a few simple things that those who sit opposite can refer to when asking their Labor colleagues: ‘Take the burden off pensioners. Don’t burden them with the cost of ambulances. Don’t burden them with the cost of water. Don’t burden them with the cost of public transport. For goodness sake, they have done their bit; respect them.’

I would now like to turn to families with higher order multiple births—triplets, quadruplets or larger birth sets. They will benefit from the extension, in this bill, of multiple birth allowance. Multiple birth allowance is an additional component of family tax benefit part A for families with three or more children that are born together. It is worth over $3,000 per year for triplets and over $4,000 per year for quadruplets or more—further to the large family supplement of over $250 per year for families with three or more children. Multiple birth families face a significantly increased financial burden over most families, both in the direct cost of raising their children and in the indirect cost of reduced workforce participation. Multiple birth allowance aims to relieve some of this financial pressure. The allowance currently cuts out when a child turns six. Our argument is, ‘Gee, that’s when kids are going to school; three pairs of school shoes and three sets of uniforms.’ That is a time when you actually need it more and not less. So, thanks to the cabinet—particularly to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer—we have been able to deliver this very significant improvement and practical assistance to these people raising large families from multiple births.

So we have listened again, and this is going to be a practical measure that will help people. Therefore, the multiple birth allowance will now continue beyond the age of six and will be paid until the children turn 16 or until the end of the year in which they turn 18 if they remain as full-time students. That is a huge step forward. There are about 1,000 Australian families who will benefit from this extension, and some will continue to receive the allowance past their children’s sixth birthdays, when it would otherwise have stopped.

Another measure in the bill is the crisis payment. It is a one-off payment equal to a week’s worth of income support for people in severe financial hardship in certain circumstances. People recently released from prison, victims of domestic violence and people affected by extreme circumstances such as natural disasters currently may receive a crisis payment. This bill enables newly arrived humanitarian entrants to Australia to be able to qualify for and receive such a payment. The availability of the crisis payment to a newly arrived humanitarian entrant is intended to give extra support to refugees managing the immediate costs of settling in to the Australian community, especially in finding long-term accommodation. Under this measure, we expect about 6,800 humanitarian entrants will be assisted by the crisis payment each year.

I also mention the Assurance of Support program. This will allow entry to Australia by migrants who are considered more likely to claim a social security payment, while protecting government outlays. These migrants are permitted to migrate to Australia on condition that the person providing the assurance undertakes both financial responsibility for their assuree’s support and responsibility for the repayment of the social security payments which may be paid to the assuree during the period of the assurance. This bill will improve and simplify the program’s operation in various ways.

I will make one last comment before I put the bill to the House. It is in relation to the hypocrisy of the member for Jagajaga in relation to Labor’s announcement today. It is about the old adage of putting it out there as though you are a leader when, in fact, you are a follower. Today Labor announced that they would be rolling out the HIPPY program. The HIPPY program is a very good program. We should know—we have been funding it. We have been funding it in a number of communities around Australia, the difference being that the coalition government says to the Australian population, ‘If you have a local problem, you need a local answer.’ We do not say to them, ‘HIPPY is the only answer and you will use the Brotherhood of St Laurence.’ We ask: ‘What is important to you?’

In a number of localities, people have used the HIPPY program. And it is a good program. But, in other areas, people have decided that the HIPPY program does not suit their needs, and they have come up with other alternatives. But, yet again, we see the Labor Party following rather than leading. That is exactly what they are: followers. One would lament where we would go to as a nation if the leaders of this nation—the coalition, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer—were not there for the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister to follow. If we were not there, they would be rudderless. I commend the bill to the House as it contains wonderful measures made possible through the good economic management of the Howard government.

See this speech in context