Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Franklin for her question. The government certainly do support the baby bonus, and as part of the budget we have introduced a number of measures to better target and improve the delivery of the baby bonus. From 1 January next year, a family income test of $150,000 a year will apply to the baby bonus. We consider that this level of family income, $150,000, to be a reasonable point at which to introduce an income test for the baby bonus. The vast majority of families will still continue to receive the baby bonus. Around 280,000 families will be eligible to receive the baby bonus in 2008-09. From our point of view, targeting these measures is economically responsible as well as fair. This government has had to make sure to introduce measures like this to rein in the profligate spending that took place under the previous government which has of course driven up inflation. We have also decided to pay the baby bonus in 13 fortnightly instalments to make sure that parents get the cash they need as their bills come in.

The member for Franklin asked me about other views. There have been some interesting views put forward about this. The ANZ Bank’s federal budget report interestingly said:

The decisions to means-test the ‘baby bonus’ and Family Tax Benefit Part B ... are especially praiseworthy as an attempt to improve the targeting of such measures.

But I have to say that my favourite quote is from an article in none other than the Manly Daily under the title ‘Budget’s warm reception’. The member for Warringah, I am pleased to note, is now paying attention. The Manly Daily, for the member for Warringah’s benefit, said:

The Federal Labor Party’s first budget in more than a decade has received strong support from families on the northern beaches.

It went on to say:

Means testing the baby bonus, which will be raised to $5000 as of July, was also supported.

It is unfortunate that members opposite do not spend more time listening to the constituents of the member for Warringah, because, if they did, they would not be in the pickle they seem to be in today.

We have had so many different points of view from those opposite; they just seem to be in a horrible mess. We have had the member for Warringah, the member Canning, the member for Pearce and the member for Indi all divided. Some support it and some do not support it. Then of course we come to the Leader of the Opposition.

See this speech in context