Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services) Share this | Hansard source

It is all right, Mr Deputy Speaker. No-one in the coalition has bothered to seek out my seat, but that’s life. None of them actually visited my electorate in the whole time of the Howard government, but that is all right—my electorate voted for Labor. I rise today to give my support to the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008, which is bringing fairness and simplicity into family assistance. This government handed down in May a fair and economically responsible budget. As my colleague the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs said in this House last week:

The budget delivered our election commitments and invested responsibly in building a modern Australia.

It was carefully framed to meet challenging economic times. It recognised that many Australians are under increasing financial strain from rising cost of living expenses and high interest rates—

the legacy of the long Howard years. It was a budget which put the concerns of working Australians at the forefront. Our $55 billion working families package clearly shows our commitment to supporting those who need it.

This bill will, in part, establish a $150,000 cap on primary income for family tax benefit part B and related tax offsets. It contains also four measures to do with the baby bonus. Firstly it introduces an income test for the baby bonus from 1 January 2009. Families with an estimated adjusted taxable income of more than $75,000 in the period of the six months after the birth of the child, or in the case of adoption or long-term care arrangements the period of six months after the child is entrusted into the family’s care, will not be eligible for the baby bonus in respect of the child. This income limit will be indexed on 1 July every year, in line with movements in the consumer price index, with the first indexation occurring on 1 July 2009. There will also be provision for the baby bonus to be paid by instalments rather than by lump sum. Payment will be made in 13 fortnightly instalments of around $385 per payment starting after the determination granting the claim. This will apply from 1 January 2009. Thirdly, the indexation date for the baby bonus will be changed from 1 July each year, after the legislated increase, to $5,000 on 1 July 2008. Current indexation dates are in March and September.

Furthermore, eligibility for the baby bonus will be extended to parents who adopt children under the age of 16, and an adoptive parent will be able to access the full amount of baby bonus even if it has previously been paid. I particularly welcome this most recent initiative to which I refer. Currently, the baby bonus is only payable for children adopted under the age of two, and this will apply from 1 January 2009. I was disappointed that the member for Warringah failed to refer to this absolute improvement in the legislation.

Governments have to think very carefully about how they spend taxpayers’ money. The previous government lacked these scruples and abandoned the traditional notion of welfare to the most needy. Instead it was busy trying to force disabled pensioners and single mothers back into the workforce regardless of circumstances—indeed, it was trying to force Australian workers back into the dark old days of master and servant through its draconian and euphemistically named Work Choices. Furthermore, as the member for Warringah correctly identified in the only part of his speech with which I concurred, the Howard government was dividing its election commitments into core and non-core promises. I appreciate the apology by the member for Warringah, who correctly says that they should have been pilloried for what happened. And, of course, the previous government was known for throwing the truth overboard.

In fact, the previous government were handing out $5,000 bonuses to millionaires. The opposition have been howling, barking, moaning and groaning since the changes outlined in this bill were first mooted. The member for Curtin said that means-testing the baby bonus would be an administrative nightmare. She might have some idea about administrative nightmares; one only needs to look at the way that the Australian workplace agreements were created, changed and mangled. Perhaps this is the reason why the former government implemented so little good policy. They always went for the easy option—the low-hanging fruit.

Meanwhile, the Leader of the Opposition has, characteristically, been wavering about means testing. The morning after the budget was handed down, when interviewed by Chris Uhlmann on the ABC, he had one of those moments which no doubt he would rather forget, but unfortunately the transcript exists. The Leader of the Opposition said:

... we think that a means test on some of these benefits is reasonable.

Oh, my goodness. The cat is out of the bag. But he would not commit to it or put a figure on where he thought the means test should kick in, presumably somewhere above the new price of alcopops, which he so strenuously defends. Two days later—a lot can happen in 48 hours—he told the ABC’s Marius Benson:

We don’t support means testing either of the baby bonus and we don’t support means testing on the husband’s income of family tax benefit B.

The backflip continues like the three-ring circus that is the opposition policy in this area. The Leader of the Opposition went on to say:

Family tax benefit B is means tested as it was under us on the income of the mother. We don’t support means testing on these things ...

I say again: the Leader of the Opposition one day says they are open to means testing; two days later—not three or four days later but within the space of 48 hours—he says:

We don’t support means testing on these things, we think that Australians ought to be encouraged—

well, that’s brain surgery!—

and rewarded for having families and working hard.

So do we. He then went on to say:

However, having said that we are not going to block it in the Budget.

Maybe the current Leader of the Opposition, as opposed to any other putative leaders of the opposition, thought that he was speaking on different programs on the ABC and no-one would spot the difference. Where exactly are the opposition on this issue? Can they make up their wandering, mendicant minds? Are they Arthur or Martha? What is their alternative? They want to reduce the benefits to the battlers so that the millionaires can get the assistance that the millionaires know they do not really need.

In support of my case I would like to refer to a notorious group of left-wing, Green Left Weekly reading, pinko lefties. In case you are curious about who that is, I of course refer to that notorious cheer squad of the ALP, the Business Council of Australia. The Business Council of Australia has called for the means-testing of some of these benefits. Even before the budget was brought down, the President of the Business Council of Australia, Mr Greig Gailey, said it was inappropriate to hand out benefits such as the baby bonus regardless of income and it is time to spend taxes more wisely. Mr Gailey continued:

If you look at the position of what one might describe as the middle ranking taxpayers, something like about 30 per cent of the tax they pay actually comes back to them. And that sort of churn, I think is highly questionable in terms of its efficiency and I think providing un-means tested benefits like the baby bonus is a good example. Really isn’t appropriate in our view ... those benefits if government determines to give them, should be means tested.

There we go. Well-known, left-wing branch members of the ALP, the Business Council of Australia, with whom I have not always seen eye to eye on other matters, have said:

... those benefits if government determines to give them, should be means tested.

The member for Warringah, in a throwback to his student political career, said that Labor was suffering class envy for supporting means testing. Does he therefore say that Greig Gailey has class envy? Does he therefore say that the Leader of the Opposition—who, on a day when one of his personas is kicking in, says means testing is all right—is prone to the odd bout of class envy? As I am not privy to the machinations of the leadership struggles among the conservatives, I therefore cannot decide if the member for Warringah in making this point about Labor is in fact criticising the Leader of the Opposition because he was once a member of the Labor Party. Perhaps there is a dim, dark suspicion in some of the ranks of the coalition that, if he was in the Labor Party for so many years, he really is the Manchurian candidate of the Labor Party.

Before the election, you would have thought from the propaganda and spin from those unhappily occupying the opposition benches that the Labor government and business would be at each other like a pair of mangy junkyard dogs. Instead, to no-one’s surprise, except for those on the opposition benches, we are in furious agreement and it is the opposition who are out in the cold—clinging to their old, big-spending, vote-buying ways, trying to defend the indefensible and being endlessly confused about their own position.

Newspoll conducted a poll on this issue a week or two back. It indicated that not one out of three and not two out of four but two out of three people actually supported means-testing these benefits—and most actually thought it should cut in before $150,000. It is said that people often run ahead of politicians. On this issue, the people have clearly left the divided, confused, big-spending, millionaire-welfare-loving opposition in their dust. It makes sense to target this assistance. As the minister said, this government is committed to a children-first approach to family policy and is taking responsible decisions to ensure a responsive and targeted social and income support system.

The government’s approach on this issue is an integral part of the budget commitment to keep downward pressure on inflation and interest rates. We know that the best way to help hardworking Australians is to keep downward pressure on interest rates and inflation. It should come as no surprise therefore that the Labor Party is taking a sensible and fair approach to welfare. Labor has always been the party of welfare reform and has always been the party that cares about Australians. I am proud to be part of this government, under the Prime Minister and the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, which is continuing this magnificent tradition. I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context