Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2006 Budget Measures) Bill 2006 is an omnibus bill which implements two of the government’s budget commitments and proposes a series of new measures to crack down on social security fraud and improve information gathering between social security agencies. Labor support the budget measures contained in the bill, which will make changes to the assets test for people of pension age living in rural and regional areas and implement changes to crisis payment provisions. We also support the proposals to improve information exchange between social security agencies, as long as appropriate checks and balances are in place. However, we have some serious concerns about the process through which the government has gone about granting the proposed new search and seizure powers to Centrelink that appear in schedule 2 of the bill.

The first part of the bill, schedule 1, relates to changes to the assets test. Labor believe in a retirement income system which is secure, stable, simple and fair. In particular, we remain strongly committed to a means tested age pension system which guarantees a decent retirement income to older Australians on the basis of need. We recognise that there are problems in the existing system and in particular in the existing assets test, which disadvantage pensioners or potential pension recipients who are living on the land. Under the existing assets test, many older Australians living on farms or large rural residential blocks find themselves unable to support themselves in retirement because the value of the property their home is on excludes them from the pension. Many of these older Australians are forced to sell their land or part of their land and their family homes in order to support themselves.

Labor believe older Australians should not have to sell their family homes—where they have spent the best part of their lives—in order to support themselves in retirement. Accordingly, we support the government’s changes to the assets test, which will exempt all property on the same title as the primary residence from the assets test where there is a long-term attachment to that land and where it would be unreasonable to realise the value of the land by selling or leasing it. The government is promoting this as an equity measure to address concerns that people of pension age living on farms or on rural residential properties are unfairly excluded from receiving the age pension, whereas the properties of people living in urban areas where their properties may have substantially increased in value remain exempt by virtue of being the primary residence of the person. We believe that this is reasonable but that the government could do much more to address the disadvantage faced by older Australians under the current age pension assets test.

Perhaps the area of greatest concern to Labor in this legislation relates to the search and seizure powers in schedule 2. Fraud and social security abuse threaten the integrity of the social security system. Accordingly, Labor supports measures which will enhance the capacity of social security agencies such as Centrelink to crack down on social security fraud. However we do have concerns about how this particular bill has been used as a vehicle for inserting search and seizure powers for authorised officers in the family assistance administration act, the Social Security (Administration) Act and the Student Assistance Act. In particular we are very concerned that the government has tried to slip new powers into an otherwise non-contentious and innocuously named budget measures bill. The powers would allow authorised officers to enter and search premises and to seize material which may be relevant to an offence or offences committed against the relevant act.

According to the government these powers are necessary for Centrelink and FaCSIA to detect, investigate and prosecute serious cases of fraud and abuse committed against the various programs administered under these acts. The government argues that the proposed new powers are similar to those that other Commonwealth agencies, including Medicare, the ATO, the CSA and DIMA, already have. It may be that it turns out that these powers are necessary, but I say that we need to be convinced that they are necessary to properly crack down on social security crime. Labor believes that a Senate committee should have the opportunity to examine the proposed new powers and the case for their introduction before this legislation passes through the parliament.

For example, the bill proposes allowing searches without warrant where the occupant of the premises consents to entry. But the bill does not stipulate what steps should be taken to ensure that the occupant of the house has consented. I think that anyone in this place would know that consent means different things to different people. If the government turns up on the doorstep and says, ‘We’re from the government and we’re here to help you’, not everyone has the confidence to ask them to come back another day with proper permission even when they would like to do that. Subsequently, Labor is concerned about the potential for abuse of these powers if appropriate checks and balances are not in place. Indeed, neither the bill nor the explanatory memorandum makes any mention of an oversight regime that would be put in place to monitor the use of these powers. Certainly I would not want to see such powers abused.

There are a number of issues that warrant closer scrutiny, but this is not the time or the place to go into the level of detail that I would like to see. That is what we have Senate committees for. In the future the government really should grant adequate parliamentary opportunity to examine these sorts of measures rather than trying to slip them into an omnibus bill that does not refer to them in its title. Labor will support the passage of the bill through the House, but we do reserve our final position on schedule 2 of the bill until the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee has reported on that part of the bill.

I now turn to schedule 3 of the bill, which relates to crisis payments. I have to say that I personally am very pleased that the crisis payment is being made available to victims of domestic or family violence who are suffering severe financial hardship and who have remained in their own homes after the breakdown of a relationship. This is something that the people who work in the field of domestic violence have been campaigning for for a number of years now, and it is to their credit that this measure has been included in this legislation. I want people in this place and in the wider community to know that this is due to the excellent work of people in the domestic violence sector who have lobbied long and hard to have this provision changed.

The crisis payment has existed for some time to assist people in financial crisis. The usual case was that it would be made available to people who have left the family home because of domestic violence. Many members of parliament will know the usual scenario through the experiences of their constituents—and unfortunately it is an experience that is all too common to many Australians—so they would understand that a woman, usually but not always, and children may be forced to leave home, sometimes in the middle of the night, sometimes wearing their pyjamas and carrying very little with them. In such circumstances a crisis payment was made available until the person leaving the family home could make better financial arrangements.

For people who remained in the family home, when perhaps the perpetrator of violence was taken away by police or an apprehended violence order was obtained that prevented him or her, usually him, returning to the family home, the situation was often also one of financial difficulty. Of course, living in the family home is a great advantage and obviously much less disruptive for any children in the case. But, for example, if a woman remained in the family home but had no access to the family bank account, because it was in her husband’s name, and needed money to change locks—because she genuinely feared that her husband would be back with a shotgun—to pay for the kids’ bus fares to school the next day and to buy the bread and milk, that crisis payment was not available. This bill puts into effect the commitment made in the budget that this crisis payment would now be available to people leaving the family home and to people remaining in the family home who need this sort of assistance.

It is obviously preferable for victims of domestic violence, particularly when there are children in the case, to remain in the family home. Anyone can imagine what a distressing period it is for children to see the breakdown of their parents’ relationship, particularly when there is violence involved. Perhaps they have been witnessing violence for months or years, and the added trauma of leaving the family home, leaving behind their clothes, toys and familiar environment—perhaps having to move away from their school, friends, neighbours and grandparents to unfamiliar surroundings—really makes an incredibly traumatic situation almost unbearable. We should be doing whatever we can to make it possible for victims of domestic violence to remain in the family home, and this crisis payment will improve that situation.

A pilot program in the Bega Valley called ‘Stay home and have the violence leave’ allows police, courts and support services in the Bega Valley to help victims of domestic violence—usually women and their children—to stay safely in their own homes while offenders leave. There are similar pilots in other states and territories. In most cases, these have successfully led to a reduction in repeat violence and a much less traumatic experience for the victims of domestic violence. That approach makes particular sense in an environment where funding for emergency accommodation and long-term affordable housing is very low indeed and does not nearly meet the needs of Australians who are forced to leave their homes because of violence, and I will speak more in a minute about the lack of affordable housing and emergency accommodation.

The crisis payment is something that we welcome and support. It is, unfortunately, one of the few positive steps that I have seen from the government in relation to domestic violence. There is a great deal of fanfare about the ‘Australia says no to violence against women’ advertising campaign. Frankly, I have been incredibly disturbed by this advertising campaign. Its message is weak and contradictory. For example, an advertisement in, I think, New Weekly says:

My boyfriend hits me and then he says he loves me and reckons it’s all ok.

The response in the title is:

No it’s a crime.

That is a very good message, but later in the text the advertisement goes on to say:

Violence and assault against women is always unacceptable and, of course, most men understand that.

Terrific. It then goes on to say:

Sometimes this behaviour is criminal and should be reported immediately.

I would be really interested to know when it is not criminal to hit or assault someone. I would like to know when that is not criminal. The ad goes on to say:

Women who have suffered it should never feel it is their fault—

of course—

instead they should seek help and advice. It could be from friends or parents, it could be by talking to an experienced counsellor on the new confidential helpline or it could be by visiting this website.

Or it could be by telling the police. I think this advertisement, by having this sort of text in it and by going on to say ‘It’s a serious social problem,’ once again reinforces the notion that, if you are the victim of domestic violence, you should be getting counselling. Whereas I, and I believe the majority of people, think that domestic violence is a crime and that it should be reported to the police. As a crime, it should be dealt with by the government and by all its instrumentalities in the most serious way. It is not a counselling issue. It is not a problem that I am worried about and I need to speak to a counsellor about; it is something that we as a society need to say quite clearly is a crime and should be dealt with in such a way.

The crisis payment change is welcomed, particularly given the report prepared last year by the Women’s Services Network, which was shelved by the government for over a year and then very quietly released onto the Department of Family and Community Services website. It was hidden so well that you really needed to have a degree in computer technology to know where to look for it. The report was called Women’s refuges, shelters, outreach and support services in Australia. It said that there were a number of key flaws in the government’s policy in relation to emergency accommodation where there has been domestic violence. Some of the main concerns included insufficient funding for emergency accommodation, with one in two women—half; 50 per cent—and two out of three children being turned away from refuges when seeking emergency accommodation.

Children who accompany their mothers to a refuge are not treated as separate clients of that refuge and so there is no separate funding for those children. If a woman turns up to a refuge with five children, the refuge receives funding to care for one person, the woman. No funding is received for those children as separate clients of the refuge. As I said, about half the women and two-thirds of children are turned away from emergency accommodation. This situation is particularly bad in rural and remote areas, where the majority of women and children seeking this sort of help are Indigenous.

Just over a week ago, the Treasurer delivered the 2005-06 financial budget outcome and reported a cash surplus of $15.8 billion. I am happy that there is such a terrific surplus. That is good. It is well worth aiming for. But we as a society have to ask ourselves: who is paying the price for that? I think that a society that turns 50 per cent of desperate women and two-thirds of desperate children away from emergency accommodation needs to examine its priorities a little more closely.

The extension of the crisis payment to victims of domestic violence who remain in the family home after the perpetrator of the violence has left or has been removed by the police recognises that this violence may trigger a financial crisis even when the victim is able to remain in his or her own home. That is well and truly welcomed. It is a great win for the people who have campaigned for this change for many years. I hope that it indicates a better general approach from the government on the serious issue of domestic violence.

I turn now to schedule 4 of the bill, which relates to changes to social security legislation to enhance information sharing between agencies in order to improve compliance with social security law. Labor supports any measures that are aimed at improving compliance and improving the accuracy of social security payments. Any member of parliament would know how frustrating it is to have constituents knocking on the door describing quite simple errors that seem to happen over and over again, despite what we believe to be the constituents’ best efforts to give accurate information to Centrelink. We think that any exchanges of information should be implemented in consultation with the federal Privacy Commissioner.

We also note that Centrelink is currently not required to inform people when their carers payment is about to be cut off, and we believe that Centrelink should be required to do so. Labor is not convinced that the government’s projected savings from this measure, of $131.8 million, will be realised. We know that it is quite difficult to do projections in this sort of area, but previous projections have been notoriously unreliable.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that we support most of the measures contained in this bill. We certainly support making the pension assets test fairer for older Australians living on farms and large rural residential properties. We certainly support making the crisis payment available to more victims of domestic violence. And we support improved information exchange between social security agencies, as long as the appropriate checks and balances are in place. We recognise the need for Centrelink to have sufficient powers to properly detect, investigate and prosecute social security fraud. However, we believe the new search and seizure powers proposed by the bill need more scrutiny. Accordingly, we will be reserving our position on schedule 2 of the bill until after the inquiry into these provisions by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has taken place.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation (2006 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2006 corrects a situation created by the Hawke government that relates to people residing somewhere other than in a city or other metropolitan area. It has been one of the most outrageous arrangements ever imposed on people, because it affects their right, when applying for a pension, to be able to declare a house as an asset that is not subject to the means test, simply because the area of land on which the house is legally established under town planning laws is larger than two hectares—or, one might say, larger than a typical subdivided urban block. It ignores the town planning requirements that do not allow people to subdivide that larger area of land. They just happen to reside in a situation where subdivisions are not approved, sometimes on quite large acreages and even on small acreages—rural-urban blocks are typically larger than two hectares today.

Another interesting aspect, from a social perspective, is the huge benefit that accrues, particularly to rural communities, when older people are encouraged to remain in the area. It is a statistical fact that older people put significantly higher demands on health services. Whilst some might argue that that is a good reason to send them to a city, clearly when they do create that demand there is a viable option for medical practitioners and other people who service the aged and others requiring health services to stay in that community. And of course they can also provide emergency or childcare services so that younger members of the community can continue to reside in that region.

So every argument should be put forward to give possibly additional encouragement for people to reside in the community where they may have worked for a period of time. The legislation relates to those that have done so for 20 years. I find that an excessive period when statistically the turnover of housing in metropolitan areas is more like seven years—although I think that is extending out a little bit since state governments have got so avaricious with their stamp duty charges, and people are looking to stay longer in their original house. But, if there is a seven-year or, let us say, 10-year rollover of eligible housing in metropolitan areas, one would have thought that that period of time would have been more appropriate for this legislation. Nevertheless, this is still a significant improvement.

There are other aspects of the circumstances confronting people in this situation that I would like to put on record. We have had an attitude of: ‘Well, tough. You have lived in a house on a farm of considerable acreage. Your children have taken over the management of that property and you are supposed to move out and get a house somewhere else to be eligible for a pension’—because the acreage might be in the thousands. The house is then vacant. Nobody lives in it. But where do you get the money to go and buy the house that makes you eligible for the pension? We are correcting that for people who have had an association with a property for 20 years. That is too long and it should be a shorter period.

There are other injustices that arise in these circumstances for people who may have moved to a rural subdivision of, let us say, 10 hectares or just above that. Along comes the Centrelink valuer to decide the asset value of the property. Of course, irrespective of the size of the property, people are entitled to have the value of the residence on that property excluded for the purposes of the asset test. The habit of Centrelink is to say, ‘You’re out in the bush. The house is weatherboard and asbestos; it is not worth very much at all. All the value resides in the unused acreage.’

If we have taken time off to watch some of the real estate shows that proliferated on television for a time, we have seen similar weatherboard and asbestos cottages—the television company has applied some expense to tart it up—selling for $600,000 and $700,000. What happens when Centrelink visits a property that is not eligible under these circumstances because the people have not resided there for 20 years? I think that 20 years is far too long for the test. Even in terms of farming properties, a lot of people, in upgrading their farm assets, have moved in less than 20 years but are still committed to a family farming enterprise.

What is the value of a house in a rural town measured against the value of the house and the land? My argument is that there should be an obligation on the valuer to apply metropolitan equivalence. After all, a house is a house is a house. If the roof does not leak, it gives you the same protection wherever it is. I have seen this with resumptions. Governments have come along and said, ‘That house is 50 years old; it is not worth much.’ But when they kicked the people out of the block, those people had to go and pay the market value for another residence; that is what the house is worth. In many cases, those who do not benefit from this improved legislation should be given protection when Centrelink visits to reassess their property because someone down the street has sold a lifestyle to somebody willing to pay a high value. The value of the residence should be a metropolitan equivalent and, as far as I am concerned, for a pretty highly rated suburb. In many cases that would not prevent people from receiving a pension because they would have no other income.

I wish to take this opportunity to turn to a grave issue that is confronting rural families as I speak. Unlike some other people in this place, I do not choose to raise the matter in the parliament first simply because there might be some political advantage in it. I have already addressed letters to the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, though I have yet to receive a reply as I only made the representations recently. It has been the tradition in Australia—and a wonderful one at that—that when older members of the farming family retire, perhaps unwisely, from active service within the enterprise, it is taken over by younger members of the family, such as children or grandchildren. Property can be disposed of over five years and then a person could be eligible for a pension, and I accept that, but this has to be an arms-length transaction and so it does not necessarily achieve much. If you sell your $1 million farm to the kids, they are supposed to owe you $1 million.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you know well that the average farm is not worth too much. The reality is that the property has a limited value and you buy it back in grain production every two years with the cost of just planting the crop. Nevertheless, when it does change hands to an independent party, it is probably worth $1 million. The retiring family member has not achieved very much from the sale anyway because, even if no cash transfers, a debt has to be created. That is an asset. In the present circumstances, where those people have departed from activity within the business, they are prevented by the asset test from receiving a pension.

In better times, the revenues of the farming property are sufficient to support these parents in a modest way. But the reality is that in a drought situation it is often extremely difficult for the incumbents on the property in the business to support even their own family. As the Prime Minister reiterated yesterday, the government is very sympathetic to farmers who find themselves in that situation under exceptional circumstances and it gives both income support and, in certain circumstances, interest subsidies to the people who are actually operating the farm.

What happens to mum and dad, or grandma and grandpa? They can no longer access funding from the business; it is seriously losing money. Many farmers who put a crop in this year—it probably cost them $120 a hectare—find themselves receiving no crop proceeds at all. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, you may even be interested yourself to know that as I stand here today the wonderful AWB pooling system is offering those growers with a very minimum amount of production $50 a tonne less for the wheat if it goes to export—and in my state there is no other choice—than the international price as evidenced in the trades on the Chicago Board of Trade. They have no choice about it unless this parliament decides to alter the veto that prevents other people bidding for those crops. When you are down to making a loss anyway, you need every last dollar you can get for your wheat. That situation has arisen because the pooling operator has pre-sold wheat at prices substantially lower than now apply.

The real problem I wish to draw to the attention of the House is that there are people at the moment whose assets have no productive value and who are retired from the family business but cannot get a pension because of the asset test. Either we extend EC to those people and incorporate them within the system, provided they can establish a fair case, or we have to alter further the pension entitlement of people who find themselves in this situation. This legislation is addressing a situation where we assign people to virtual starvation because they happen to sit on a piece of land that is bigger than two hectares. I guess they could grow a few vegetables to survive, but they cannot get any money. They have no income; they are too old to earn it. We are correcting that to a degree. I believe that over time the parliament has to revisit this because it is a very important issue.

It is notable that while in recent times every issue relating to someone’s employment has been raised in this place by the usually misinformed opposition—primarily, I think, in defence of some very well-paid industrial bureaucrats—I have not heard a word from them on the circumstances of these people over the 10 years that this provision has existed. In fact it is more like 15 years, I think. I certainly remember hearing Bob Hawke mention curtilage and that the house and the curtilage would be the only amount exempt. As I said, I do not think it has ever been valued sufficiently highly to give people the same protection as they get in a metropolitan area.

These are important issues. I totally support the bill; it is a substantial improvement. But I do question whether one has to prove sufficient association with the land by 20 years of occupancy. I think that could have been significantly lower—probably 10 years. I believe the Centrelink valuers, in looking at people who do not qualify under the 20-year rule and those who have made a recent investment of this nature, should, where there is no profitable productivity available from the additional acres, give the residence on that land a deemed value equivalent to what it would bring if it sat in a metropolitan area—because a house is a house is a house. That would relieve a lot of people who still find themselves with these problems.

Because of a recent experience, I strongly recommend to some that they do not go into these non-recourse loans—loans where you borrow money that will be paid from your assets when you die. They have a deleterious effect on valuations because the bank gets very generous with the valuation. I had some people in the other day who were going to get wiped out because they had gone to borrow some money under one of these arrangements and had accepted what I thought was a highly inflated valuation on their property. Then because they had gone through that process Mr Centrelink rang them up and said: ‘I hear you have a new value on your property. I want to take that into account in your pension.’ They had a very unhappy experience with me because I had to be quite critical of the things they had done. They had gone to one of these investment seminars and had come away thinking that they could have all this money and never have to pay it back. In fact, they were going to lose their pension in the process. People have to be very careful about how they manage those things and the contingent outcomes that arise.

In closing, I totally support this legislation. It is only too late in its arrival. I am very sad that the opposition over the years has not been putting the heat on this matter that has been put on by the members of the backbench who have had people in their constituencies with these sorts of concerns. Nevertheless, it is a great improvement, and I trust that the minister will take some note of the remarks I have made regarding where further improvement can be made, the recognition and treatment of the rights of people who choose not to live in the city and the benefits of encouraging people to reside in rural areas. It does start to spread our population—decentralisation is still a word that not too many parliaments practise, but these things have been disincentives to decentralisation in the past.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2006 Budget Measures) Bill 2006 before the parliament today, particularly the provisions relating to what we all know as curtilage, is a classic example of the parliament working as it should work and of local members working as they should work. The member for O’Connor was right: the pressure that the backbench put on the government in relation to the issue of curtilage has resulted in this bill before the parliament today. It is a great win for those who have been so badly affected by previous policy, but it is also a great win for the operations of the parliament and the backbench. It shows that the Howard government listens. It shows that, when there is an issue, you can take a matter to the government, argue your case and get a win. I pay tribute to the member for Greenway—who is in the parliament this morning and who was certainly a strong advocate for and a very interested advocate in this particular issue—as well as the member for Forde and the member for Gilmore in getting the outcome that we see before the parliament today.

In going through the process, all of us who had an interest in this issue were concerned that we were seeing people who were absolutely destitute—asset rich but with no income. They had, in a number of cases, an asset they could not turn into cash so that they could actually eat. The problem was that significant. I well remember listening to the member for Forde telling the members of my committee that she was taking food parcels to pensioners, older Australians, who were affected by the curtilage rules at the time. It was really distressing.

When we embarked on what we might do about this we found it very difficult, because whatever we were going to do was going to cost some money. In fact, the measure before the parliament this morning is expected to increase expenditure by $173 million over the next four years. That is the amount of money we as a government are going to have to spend in making sure that this bill operates as we want it to operate. There was a lot of resistance about such a large amount of money and the backbench was faced with having to argue its case to make sure a good outcome could be achieved.

There were a number of options put before the government. We could have exempted the total value of landholding with a long-term attachment rule. We could have allowed an increase, from two hectares to four hectares, in the maximum amount of land that could be exempt from the assets test. That option was looked at. We looked at using the local council to determine the amount of allowable curtilage because, as the member for O’Connor has articulated, local councils have certain planning rules in relation to the subdivision of land. We looked at getting councils to certify that the land may not be subdivided. That option came with very great concerns because we could see that people might influence councils to do things that perhaps might not be what they would normally do so that those people could change their pension arrangements. We looked at an option where the customer could be given the choice of having the value of the home and curtilage exempt or the total value of the landholding reduced by a certain amount. We looked at an option of the assessable amount of excess curtilage and/or farmland being reduced by up to an additional $50,000, indexed to CPI. Finally, we looked at the option of altering the existing hardship provisions in the Social Security Act to try to help people affected by the curtilage rules.

As you can imagine, with so many options available and the government mindful of the cost, there was a lot of discussion on this, and I certainly thank the members of my backbench policy committee, who worked hard on this. Firstly with Senator Kay Patterson, the then Minister for Family and Community Services, and then with the member for Longman, Mal Brough, who is the current Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, we came to the outcome today. The outcome today is of course the most expensive option, which makes it doubly great that the backbench is able to influence the government and get an outcome like this. It is also the simplest option. Many of the other options are complex, and the last thing we need in the Social Security Act is more complexity. If we are able to find something that is straightforward, then that is a good outcome.

This measure will be straightforward and simple. It will allow for the exemption of all the land on the same title document as the family home, with three provisions. The three provisions are that the claimant is of age pension age and claiming age pension care, a payment or a service pension; that they have a long-term attachment to the land of at least 20 years—Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, you would have constituents in that situation; and that they can show that the land with commercial potential is being used to generate an income. That protects the taxpayer, of course, and that is what this bill before the parliament this morning seeks to do.

When we announced that this was what we were going to do there was universal delight, as you would expect, among those who are so badly affected by the current curtilage arrangements. It is a joy for members of parliament to be able to deliver such a great benefit to a section of the community who have been so badly affected. I am really pleased to be able to support this measure this morning.

This bill also contains other provisions, one of which sounds pretty horrendous: search and seizure powers. But this particular part of the legislation is really a protection measure and also makes it very clear what the search and seizure powers are. It considers principles along the lines that legislation should only authorise entry to premises under warrant or by consent or in a limited range of other circumstances, such as a condition of a licence, and that legislation that confers coercive powers should require that these powers may only be exercised by appropriately qualified officers. This basically builds in protections in relation to search and seizure powers.

I am also pleased to see that we are extending the exchange of information between agencies. This is a powerful tool to make sure that the Australian taxpayer is properly paying benefits that should be paid. You could say that in a different way; you could say it is to stop people rorting the system. But I would prefer to believe that those numbers of people are small, that most people are honest—and sometimes, with the data-matching that is available, we can find that we are not paying enough benefit and then that benefit can be adjusted.

This bill will allow the Department of Health and Ageing to provide information to Centrelink or one of the departments with responsibility for social security payments. The objective is to compare data on people permanently entering residential aged care with data on recipients of carer allowance. If carer allowance recipients do not notify Centrelink when the person they are caring for leaves their care then they will build up overpayment debts, and nobody wants to see that. That could of course be quite accidental, not intentional. The bill also allows Medicare Australia access to protected information held by the Child Support Agency. That sounds a bit nasty but it is not. For the purposes of administering welfare payments, information can be gathered on a range of topics under the social security law.

I am pleased to support this legislation. The curtilage aspect has been a long time coming. It is very welcome and I thank the government for listening to the backbench.

Louise Markus (Greenway, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend those who have been on the backbench since long before me—the member for Herbert and the member for Forde—who have worked long and hard over recent years arguing and advocating on behalf of their constituents for some of the changes in the Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2006 Budget Measures) Bill 2006 that we are talking about today. This bill gives effect to a number of measures announced in the 2006-07 budget, including changes to the social security means test and amendments to crisis payment, and will introduce new search and seizure powers to officers under the social security and family assistance laws.

The measures in this bill will assist pensioners, carer payment recipients of pension age and qualifying service pensioners who live on farms and rural residential blocks of more than two hectares and who are currently excluded or receive a reduced pension because of the current assessable asset value of land adjacent to their home. As the member for Herbert has already acknowledged, this is going to have a huge financial impact, of around $42.1 million in 2006-07 and $41.7 million in 2007-08. So I want to acknowledge and thank the government for listening to the people of outer urban Sydney and rural areas across this nation and committing this kind of assistance to them.

Currently, only a person’s individual home and adjacent land of up to two hectares is exempt from the assets test, even though land in excess of the two hectares may be held on the same title document. This can affect people living in rural and also semirural areas, who may be forced to sell and move from their long-term family home to support themselves financially because they have substantial assets in the form of excess land which is assessed as an asset for social security purposes.

In my electorate there are many families, indeed a substantial Maltese population, who have contributed to providing most of the Sydney region over recent years with our fruit and vegetable produce. These families have worked hard and paid their taxes. At a time when they are no longer earning an income but want to keep residing in their family home, they now have to go to welfare agencies. I have had a number of families in my office over recent years who have come for emergency payments and who have had to go to their children for help to pay their electricity bills and so on. This cannot continue, and this bill will indeed bring change for them.

The changes, which will come about from 1 January 2007, will mean that, where the land is two hectares and under, the person will have to satisfy the private land use test. That means that the land primarily has to be for private and domestic purposes. This exemption will be available to all income support recipients. Where the principal home and land is greater than two hectares, the pensioner will have to satisfy the ‘extended land use test’. The pensioner must also prove that he or she qualifies for the age pension, carer payment or DVA service pension and has a long-term, minimum 20-year, continuous attachment to the land and that effective use is being made of productive land to generate an income.

These amendments will counter the concerns that have grown over recent years about the increasing inequality between city and rural areas in the treatment of pensioners. There is no reason why older Australians on such properties and in rural residential areas should be forced to move from their principal homes. I know in Western Sydney, particularly around my electorate of Greenway, around Riverstone and Marsden Park, there are challenges because of the state Labor government’s decisions about land, green zones and so on that are affecting the capacity of these people to sell their land. So, even if they did want to sell their land at this point in time, that would not be a viable option for them.

This bill also encompasses changes to the crisis payment. Having worked for 25 years with families in Western Sydney that have faced issues surrounding domestic violence, I am very pleased to see these measures introduced. This measure establishes further grounds upon which to qualify for crisis payment. From 1 January 2007, people who have been subjected to domestic or family violence and who are receiving a social security income support payment may be paid a one-off crisis payment without having to establish a new home. Children and young people who are the silent victims of domestic violence will benefit from this.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics in 2005 found that violence which occurs between partners may affect the children who also live in those homes. The survey found that 49 per cent of men and women who had experienced violence from a previous partner had children in their care, and 36 per cent said that their children had witnessed violence. In New South Wales, domestic assaults account for 35 per cent to 40 per cent of all assault incidents each year. The majority, 86.1 per cent, of domestic assaults in 2004 occurred on a residential premises.

Adults’ and children’s safety and protection are vital, so it is critical that appropriate policy that can assist parents with providing that safety both for themselves and for their children is created. This new payment will do that, since it will help to fund the cost of securing the individual’s home and other related expenses. This new payment will be practical and will enable individuals to secure safety for themselves and their children in their own homes. This measure will have an initial financial impact of $1.1 million over 2006-07 and a further $1.7 million up to 2010.

Finally, this bill will also encompass new search, entry and seizure powers for authorised officers under the family assistance law, social security laws and the Student Assistance Act 1973. This has come about to further prevent defrauding of social security. Even though Centrelink’s capability to better detect cases of fraud and routine non-compliance has greatly improved, there are cases of more serious abuse. While they are in the minority, Centrelink does require further enhanced powers. This new law will enable Centrelink to have those powers so that government agencies can better detect cases where social security payments have been incorrectly paid. This bill will bring about necessary assistance and support to key communities in our society.

Can I say finally that I am delighted that I was able to contribute towards the changes in this amendment, particularly the change to the curtilage rules. I know that many people in my constituency who are on semirural and rural properties will benefit from this. In recent weeks I have had the pleasure of being able to talk to some of those families who have come through my office in the last few years and who have been affected by this, and they are delighted with this change. I commend the bill to the House.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are aspects of the Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2006 Budget Measures) Bill 2006 that I am highly supportive of, and there is another aspect of this bill that I must say I have a few concerns about. It is an omnibus bill which proposes the following changes to social security legislation: changes to the aged pensions and veterans’ entitlement assets tests announced in the budget, which relate to people living in rural areas, and significant new search and seizure powers for authorised officers under the family assistance, social security and students’ assistance law. I highlight or flag at this stage that that is the area that I have some concerns about. The third area is new provisions for crisis payments for victims of domestic and family violence. I think that is something that all members of this House would embrace. And there are changes to information exchange arrangements between social security agencies to improve compliance.

The assets test change in this legislation is the area that will lead to an increase in cost. That is the most costly measure in this bill. It attracts a cost of $173 million, but the government believes that the increased compliance that will accompany this change will, to some extent, nullify that increase. I have a word of caution for the government: I would not count on that too much. You really have to look at what the bottom line is. The bottom line is $173 million; therefore, I think that that is the predicted cost.

The changes to the aged pension entitlement asset test will allow people who are of a pension age and who live on certain kinds of farms and rural residential properties to exempt the value of land on the same title as their primary residences from the pensions asset test. Currently only the primary residence and an area of up to two hectares around it are exempt. This will give approximately 10,000 people on aged pensions more access to aged pension payments. I think that that is something that all people in this parliament would embrace.

I have had constituents come to see me who have been affected by the current legislation, which has created great hardship for a number of people who are elderly, who are frail, who have their homes on the land—the homes they have lived in for many years—and who identify who they are with their place of residence. This change will allow them to continue to live where they have lived all their lives and receive the pension and other entitlements that they are entitled to. One case in particular comes to mind. The children of aged parents came to see me. Their mother had become a resident of a high-care residential facility. Because the family owned the property, they were required to pay the daily rate of a nonpensioner. This change would definitely help them, because the property would be looked at in the totally different light of exempting it from the assets test.

The second point that I would like to refer to, the second part of this legislation, is the one that I have real concerns about. This part of the legislation allows for changes to the family assistance, social security administration and student assistance legislation to provide search and seizure powers for authorised officers to investigate and prosecute offences in relation to programs administered under these acts. You might ask: what does this mean? The way I read it, it is giving employees of departments the right to enter people’s residences to search and seize their property without the types of requirements that law officers have to meet.

I find it most interesting that the previous speakers on the government side—the member for Greenway and the member for Herbert—were claiming that this legislation before the parliament is a win for the backbenchers in the government. If I were a backbencher in the Howard government, I would be extremely concerned. I notice the minister at the table looking in my direction. I would love to be a backbencher in a Beazley government because we would be very careful of introducing this sort of clause into any piece of legislation. A Beazley government would be very mindful of the impact that legislation could have on people.

The member for Greenway and the member for Herbert—members of the government’s backbench—are claiming support for this piece of legislation. I hope that when constituents from the member for Greenway’s electorate and the member for Herbert’s electorate contact them about abuses of this legislation—people entering the residences of their constituents, looking in the cupboards, taking away things that they feel may incriminate the constituents and walking around taking photographs—the members will stand up and say, ‘I supported this legislation and this legislation has come to fruition because of my actions.’ I would have thought that the member for Greenway would be more inclined to get out there and fight for an MRI scanner at Blacktown hospital—something that the people of Blacktown are crying out for and would really benefit them on a daily basis—rather than taking responsibility for a piece of legislation that will allow officers of departments to search their constituents’ residences. Maybe the member for Greenway and the member for Herbert should be arguing against the government’s extreme industrial relations changes, which are impacting on a daily basis on the lives of workers in their electorates. They will be working longer hours under poorer conditions for less money.

To give the House an idea of how these new enter, search and seize laws could have an impact, I will refer to a constituent who I have already had dealings with. In doing so, I add that the department already has very wide powers. Nobody in this parliament supports fraud, be it welfare fraud or fraud by big business. A constituent who came to see me nearly 12 months ago was being investigated by the Centrelink fraud unit. This woman had been in a relationship with a man for some two years. They felt that they had a strong relationship, so they bought a house together, and the house was in both their names. Unfortunately, they started to have some problems with their relationship and that led to them separating. The male partner moved to Sydney, but the woman remained in the house on the Central Coast of New South Wales.

Centrelink did not believe that they were living apart, despite the fact that the male partner was living and working in Sydney and had a flat which he was paying rent for. He had the receipts to prove that he was paying rent, but still Centrelink felt that the couple had a relationship. One of the Centrelink officers visited the woman on the Central Coast. I might add that they were still trying to work it out and see if there was a possibility that they could get back together. They had been separated for six to 12 months. The Centrelink officer who visited the woman said in an intimidating manner: ‘You’ve either got to get rid of him, marry him or move on.’ That is the kind of advice that Centrelink gives constituents in my electorate.

The employer of the male partner received a letter from Centrelink telling him that they wished to update the man’s Centrelink file. The real surprise in this matter is that the man had never in his entire life received a Centrelink payment, yet Centrelink were writing to his employer, asking for personal information about him. I think that that is an absolute disgrace. He was horrified by this fact. I might add that he was also very angry. He told his employer that it had nothing whatsoever to do with him. He felt that it was an invasion of his privacy that Centrelink had contacted his employer when he had had no involvement with Centrelink.

Centrelink decided to move a step further. They contacted the school that the woman’s children attended. They asked the school to name the people on the enrolment form who were contacts for her children. I think quite a number of issues revolve around that. Apart from the fact that in this day and age information of that nature is very sensitive, it is a real invasion of privacy. I might add that the ex-partner’s name was not on the children’s enrolment forms. The simple fact that Centrelink can contact a school and ask for details of the names of people on forms I see as a great abuse of power.

Centrelink contacted the local post office to see whether any mail was being addressed to the ex-partner. Once again, they were seeking details of a sensitive nature about the male partner, who did not live there, all because they had an idea that there was some fraud taking place. Centrelink contacted the RTA and ran a check on every single car the ex-partner had owned, obviously seeking to find out what the address was and whether or not both names were on any registration forms. Nothing became apparent to Centrelink. The man’s Sydney address and his name only were on the registration forms.

You can understand why I am really concerned about this aspect of the legislation. Centrelink did not recontact either member of the couple. I might add that they do not even speak to each other now. The outcome of this was so bad that two people who were in a situation of trying to solve their difficulties and maybe getting back together are now almost sworn enemies.

At the time that this was taking place, I met with the fraud investigation unit of social security. I was quite disturbed when I heard about the powers that the unit has. The unit can investigate now—before the legislation that we are currently debating comes into force. They can contact the tax office, the post office and the school, as I have already mentioned. They also have the right to video people. I understand that there are even videos of people within their residence. They hire private investigators to stalk those people who they feel may be abusing or defrauding Centrelink. In some cases they may find that there are grounds for this, but in other cases what they are doing is a real abuse of power. If the change in this legislation comes in, where Centrelink officers can be given wider powers of search and seizure, I am really concerned about where it will end.

The changes to the existing provisions relating to crisis payments are welcomed. I think that any person who is a victim of domestic violence deserves every bit of assistance that they can be given. The one-off payment of $230, which can be paid up to four times in a month, is recognition of the extreme circumstances that surround issues of domestic violence. I have no problem with the other miscellaneous changes. It is interesting to note that currently a person in receipt of a carers payment can have that payment cut off and Centrelink is not required to tell them about that. That is something that Centrelink needs to work on. People need to be informed about changes, not just to find out when they go the bank that they have not been paid. There is a better exchange of information between the Department of Health and Ageing and Centrelink, and that is welcome.

In closing, I would like to spend the last minute I have on the pension assets test. That change, as I mentioned, is very welcome. It will exempt all properties on the same title as the primary residence where there has been a 20-year attachment, where it would unreasonable for that to be treated differently and where the land is used for domestic purposes. I note that Senator Evans in the other House moved that the sale of pensioners’ homes be exempt from the assets test for two years. Due to the exemption pensioners building new homes, particularly in boom states like Western Australia, would not be disadvantaged in the sale of their homes by the delays caused in construction. Given that we have a chronic skills shortage in this country, a skills shortage that has been created by the Howard government, that is something that is well and truly worth while and is worth the government considering. (Time expired)

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Shortland’s speech was interesting and informative. She has drawn to the attention of the House that this legislation, the Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2006 Budget Measures) Bill 2006, is very generous. As outlined by the member for Shortland, the skills shortage that has been such a problem, particularly in Western Australia, is the result of the strong economy that has been built day by day, week by week, month by month by the Howard government, including the ministers who are supporting the Prime Minister.

I rise today to support this bill, which gives effect to several measures announced as part of the 2006-07 budgetary decisions. The Howard government believes that older Australians and carers should share in the prosperity they have helped to create. In the last budget, delivered in May of this year, the government provided $586 million in additional funding support for older Australians. In that budget the government also committed to allow more rural residents to access the age or service pension, at a cost of $173 million. We saw the fruits of the first part of that budgetary promise come to pass on 1 July of this year, when two government initiatives were released, one being the one-off payment of $102.80 to older Australians and the second being the one-off payment of $1,000 to carers on a carers payment and the $600 one-off payment to carers on carer allowance.

This bill sets out the second half of this year’s budgetary promises by enacting the government’s initiatives for older rural Australians. Prior to this year’s budget, some people in rural areas of Australia could not access the pension due to the value of the land surrounding their family home. Through this bill, the government is seeking to change this situation by introducing concessional assets test treatment for older Australians who reside in rural and rural residential areas. This test will assist age pensioners, age pension carer payment recipients and age and qualifying Department of Veterans’ Affairs service pensioners who live on farms and rural residential blocks of more than two hectares.

The concessional assets test treatment reflects the view of the Howard government that older Australians on farms and rural residential areas should not be forced to move from their principal home, where they have lived for a long time, to gain an adequate retirement income—that is, they should not have to move from their family home in order to access the pension opportunities that are offered to other Australians. The concessional assets test treatment will, in certain circumstances, increase the maximum amount of land that can be exempt from the assets test from two hectares to encompass all the land on the same title as the person’s principal home. This test and its concession have been embraced by older Australians in my electorate of McMillan in Gippsland in Victoria.

The McMillan electorate covers 8,300 square kilometres, from the Great Dividing Range in the north to Wilson’s Promontory in the south and from the eastern outskirts of Melbourne at Pakenham to the edge of the Latrobe Valley in the east. In my electorate, 15.4 per cent of the population is in the 65 years and over age bracket—higher than the average for Victorian rural electorates. One of my constituents, Mr Sonneman of Lillico, has been in contact with my office over this issue—that is, curtilage. Mr Sonneman had several questions in relation to the amalgamation of titles in order to maximise his advantage from the concession. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and his department for their very helpful fact sheet and question and answer sheets, which have helped explain fully the concessions to Mr Sonneman.

In his second reading speech, the minister explained that to access the fairer assets test the person must show that land with commercial potential is being used productively to generate an income. The minister said that the government recognised that some pensioners will have the potential to make an income while others will have lease arrangements in place or have the younger generation working their properties. Other properties, such as many rural residential properties, will have very limited capacity to generate income. This bill recognises that fact. Clearly, this will increase pension payments or allow pensions to be paid to these rural people for the first time, improving their living standards while allowing them to stay in their long-term family home. Most meaningfully, perhaps, it will help retired farmers who are no longer able to work their properties to stay on the land while encouraging the land to be worked to its full potential by those who are capable of doing that work. The government has taken seriously community concerns over whether older Australians in rural and city areas were treated equally when city dwellers had recently experienced substantial increases in the value of their home properties and yet were not being asset tested.

I would like to recognise the work of my parliamentary colleagues the member for Forde, Kay Elson, and the member for Gilmore, Joanna Gash. I am probably leaving others out, but they are two important members. I recognise them for raising this issue, for their never-say-die attitude and for passionately and persistently knocking on this door until it fell down. Both these women are energetic, hard-hitting members of the House and this bill as presented today is a result of the very hard work that they put in. Many people will benefit from their work over many years to come. Even though the member for Forde is retiring, her legacy will live on in this bill. The concessional assets treatment test is a demonstration of the government’s appreciation and acknowledgment of the contribution older Australians and carers have made and continue to make in our society.

Other vitally important measures that this bill establishes include provision for a new one-off payment to support people who have been subjected to domestic or family violence and who choose to stay in their house. The support is in the form of a crisis payment, which is currently around $230 dollars and is payable up to four times in any 12-month period. Sadly, according to the Australian Government Office for Women, domestic violence can be exhibited in many forms, including physical violence, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, intimidation, economic deprivation or threats of violence. Domestic violence occurs in all geographic areas of Australia and in all socioeconomic and cultural groupings, although domestic violence is a more significant problem for certain groups, such as regional and rural Australia and some Indigenous communities.

As incidences of domestic violence often go unreported, it is difficult to measure the true extent of the problem. According to a study conducted in 1998 by the Australian Institute of Criminology, called Reporting crime to the police, most assaults against women where the victim knows the offender go unreported. The work of community based organisations such as the Gippsland Family Violence Prevention Network facilitates information gathering on this issue across the whole of Gippsland. They work with groups such as CASA. They work with people who have what were described to me today as ‘unhealthy relationships’—that is what they call them. They have a very proactive program, which begins next year, where they are proposing to go into schools to do in-service work with teachers who are untrained at this time for the problems that they face in the classroom.

It was drawn to my attention today that we have not only the stereotype difficulties in family relationships but also boyfriend-girlfriend difficulties involving domestic violence. You would immediately ask: why doesn’t one or the other person in an abusive boyfriend-girlfriend relationship—at a young age, perhaps—get out? Why isn’t one of them walking away? I think that everyone in this House would agree that, if a young person finds themselves in a violent relationship, that is no place for them to be and there is only one way to go: you seek help and you get out as quickly as possible.

If anything comes from my address today, it should be this short call: anybody who is in a violent relationship—any young person who is suffering intimidation or a threatening experience in a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship—should take the safe road home. Go and get help. Go to the web that our young people are so effective at using, like we did today when we googled the Gippsland Women’s Health Service. That is just in Gippsland. I am concerned for those young people who are experiencing violence in a relationship. In my experience with those who have had difficulty in this area, it does not change unless you get help. I respectfully suggest to all of those people that they get help today and get out of the relationship as quickly as possible. These organisations operate not only in my electorate but also in Peter McGauran’s electorate, the electorate of Gippsland, reaching all the way down to the Bass Coast Shire Council, which covers the Bass Coast area, including Phillip Island.

The 2005 Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey estimates that 36 per cent of women who experienced physical assault by a male perpetrator reported it to the police in 2005 compared to 19 per cent in 1996, and 19 per cent of women who experienced sexual assault reported it to the police in 2005 compared to 15 per cent in 1996. Whilst the data is patchy, research suggests that domestic violence is a significant problem in remote and regional Australia.

A Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics publication for 2006, About Australia’s Regions, reported that domestic violence rates were highest in very remote Australia, followed by remote and outer regional localities. By contrast, major cities had the lowest rates of domestic violence. The New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research records rates of apprehended violence orders by region. When broken down into statistical divisions, a striking regional discrepancy becomes apparent. Every one of the non-metropolitan statistical divisions in New South Wales registered apprehended violence order rates well in excess of the state average. By comparison, every one of the metropolitan divisions, barring inner Sydney, had apprehended violence order rates considerably lower than the state average.

To this end, a crisis payment is already available to people experiencing hardship in certain personal crisis situations such as if they have to leave home and start afresh because of domestic violence. However, some people who have been subjected to domestic or family violence find it more viable to remain in their own homes, particularly when they are striving to maintain stability for children. Even so, there are often costs associated with such a crisis situation, especially in securing the home and other related expenses. Making crisis payments available will give valuable support to people to make these practical arrangements at these challenging times in their lives.

The Howard government continues to be proactive in the areas where people have been found to fall through the cracks. We need vigilant members, like the members for Forde and Gilmore, who continue to be ever mindful in their daily work of their constituents and the wellbeing of this great nation. After all, do not these women show that this vigilance is the first and most important responsibility for an elected member? I have praised the work of those two members of parliament. It is not usual to recognise the consistent work done by backbenchers of this parliament in drawing the attention of ministers and the executive to issues that are of crucial importance to them.

We take on and look at payments through Centrelink and Veterans’ Affairs across our community where people have fallen through the cracks. We look at the drought situation that is now facing the nation, all the way from the west through to Victoria. That is going to put added pressure on families and households, particularly in rural and remote Australia. Farmers particularly are struggling, after many years of drought. Others are just having a terrible season whereby their finances are impacted. Yesterday you heard the Prime Minister saying that the Howard government will do everything it can to address the issue of the drought across this nation. But when we talk about family violence we have to realise that those families under pressure are going to need as much help as they can possibly get.

I think the member for Rankin, who is about to speak, would agree that when families are under pressure quite often the smallest things, which are of no account in normal times and good times, become major issues. That is why these organisations right across Australia are there to help. The problem I see is getting people who have never sought help in the whole of their lives to take the one step of picking up the phone and asking for support, whether it be family counselling or rural counsellors for farmers—which I have in Gippsland and which we have right across the nation. You cannot sit back in your home and do nothing when you are struggling to that extent. We want you to reach out to the services that are available through the federal and state governments—even if you only get somebody to make the call to Centrelink on your behalf so that you get the opportunity to talk to a counsellor or even a referral service. The plea goes out now that if you are suffering pick up the phone and make that call. Do not take it all on yourself when there is help out there, being offered at a federal, state or local government level, that can be delivered in one way or another.

It would be a great opportunity for me now, if I so chose, to bash the state governments of Australia for their failure to invest in infrastructure, particularly water, in the capital cities. I think now we all have a joint responsibility—Liberal, Labor, Democrat, Independent, everybody—to take a look at what this nation can do at a local level, even a personal level, to save water. In my maiden speech, way back all those years ago, in 1990, I talked about recycling water and what we were doing at the Pakenham sewerage authority. I have recently been condemned for even talking about the Pakenham sewage authority in my maiden speech because it was a trivial matter. It is not a trivial matter anymore. It was one of the first organisations to use money from the local community to invest in water recycling. In those days, all the water boards were only tiny and run by local councils, and I was part of the local government. Whether it be domestic violence, water saving or other national challenges that we have, we need to come together as a nation and face up to the issues of the day.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I will concentrate my remarks on the Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation (2006 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2006 on schedule 3, which relates to the crisis payment. I take this opportunity to congratulate the government on expanding the eligibility for the crisis payment. By way of explanation, the legislation before us extends the eligibility for the crisis payment to victims of domestic violence who are on income support, are in severe financial hardship and remain in their own home after the perpetrator of the violence has left that home or has been removed from it. The crisis payment is an amount of around $230 and it can be paid up to four times in any 12-month period in extreme circumstances.

At present, the crisis payment is available only to victims of domestic violence in severe financial hardship who are forced to leave their own home and establish a new home. This legislation extends eligibility to victims of domestic violence who choose to stay in their own home after the perpetrator of the violence has left or has been removed. It recognises that domestic violence can trigger a financial crisis for people on low incomes, even when the victim does not leave his or her own home. This is clearly a good measure and one that is warmly welcomed by me, as the member for Rankin, and other members of the opposition—proving yet again that, where the government produces good and worthy legislation, Labor will support it.

This debate gives me the opportunity to ask what is going on in our communities, particularly in our disadvantaged communities. There is so much domestic violence, sexual violence and child abuse and there are so many families in crisis—not only in disadvantaged communities, but there is a concentration of these problems in disadvantaged communities. After more than a decade—in fact, 15 years—of continuous economic growth and unprecedented prosperity, we should as parliamentarians ask what is going on in our communities. Why is it that so many people are being made more vulnerable? Unemployment has fallen to its lowest levels in 30 years and there has been substantial growth in average income levels; yet a worryingly large proportion of people are missing out.

In preparation for this legislation, I took the opportunity to contact, with my office, a number of the voluntary organisations that operate in Logan City. My electorate of Rankin covers a very substantial part of Logan City. A significant part of the area of Logan City that is covered by the boundaries of Rankin is very disadvantaged, while other parts are much more affluent. I can report to the parliament that, as a result of those inquiries, St Vincent de Paul has advised us of a definite increase in requests, and it has identified those aged more than 60 years as coming in for assistance—and this is an unusual development.

Loaves and Fishes, another charitable organisation, has reported almost a 100 per cent increase in requests in recent times. Interestingly, like some of the others that I will report, Loaves and Fishes is saying that it is not necessarily the battlers but others, who perhaps you would think would be doing okay, who are coming to it for assistance. The organisation is now finding that it has coming to it grandparents who have grandchildren to care for because something very bad has happened in those families and the children are now in the care of the grandparents rather than the parents. It is those grandparents who are now going to Loaves and Fishes looking for crisis assistance.

The Crestmead Community Centre has reported a major increase—almost 100 per cent—in requests for crisis assistance. The Logan East community centre—located on the other side of the Pacific Highway, in the somewhat more affluent part of the electorate—has also reported a definite increase. It is saying that it is mainly younger people coming to the centre and that they are requesting assistance for just about everything. The Gospel Lighthouse is a food bank that has recently opened. A big demand is being reported there. The Tribe of Judah has reported big increases—from around 50 requests per day to a staggering 200 to 300 requests per day. There are $20 food parcels given away. The Tribe of Judah has reported that it is mostly younger families requesting assistance. St Mark’s Anglican Church has reported a big increase in young families requesting assistance but also reported that there has been no real increase in relation to pensioners. Mission Australia has reported a big increase in demand across the board in all age groups. Boystown has reported a big increase in requests, mostly from young people and especially from single mothers.

An astonishing conclusion from our survey is that, despite Australia’s rising affluence, more and more families are finding themselves in crisis. We need to understand what is going on in our communities. One of the contributors—and there are many of them—to the increased incidence of people in crisis in my electorate is a very large increase in rents in Logan City. I also note that the increases in rent in south-east Queensland overall are amongst the biggest increases anywhere in Australia. This is a result of, frankly, the mismanagement of the housing industry by the Howard government. It knew that its policies in relation to taxation and other measures would lead to a housing boom. That boom occurred but now seems to be over, other than perhaps in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. The most recent figures show that the boom is tapering off somewhat in Western Australia and the Northern Territory and has subsided in the other states, but rents have gone through the roof.

I will give an indication of the rents in Logan City. In 2004, houses in the suburb of Woodridge, in which I live, rented for about $175 a week; in 2006 they rent for at least $230 a week. Apartments in Woodridge in 2004 rented for about $120 a week, and now they rent for about $170 a week. For people on low incomes, rent assistance is available, but it nowhere near covers the full cost of rent. I am not arguing that it necessarily should, but rent assistance has not kept up with the soaring rents in some of the most disadvantaged parts of Queensland. As a result of that, if families are confronted with a $50 per week hole in their budget—in the case of people renting units, and there is a similar rent increase in relation to houses—you certainly can understand why the problem of the rental crisis in south-east Queensland and other parts of Queensland is contributing to the overall increase in demand for emergency relief and crisis relief.

It is those sorts of increases in rent that have prompted me to argue for some support for families who are so vulnerable and perhaps, in a small minority of cases, understandably have got behind in their rental payments in the past. The problem for families on low incomes, in particular, who get behind in their rent payments is that they are then registered on a database called TICA. That database is then made available to landlords right around Australia, and recorded on it, without the full knowledge of the renter, is a history. If that history involves significant defaults on rent payments, then the family will have enormous difficulty in getting rental accommodation in the future. These databases are a fact of life. They are not against the law, although Queensland is leading the nation in developing safeguards that will ensure that the databases are not abused and that hopefully there will be some access for renters so that they can know exactly what is being registered on those databases.

Once you are on the database, life becomes quite difficult, and that is why I have suggested that, for those vulnerable families, rent assistance might be paid direct from Centrelink to the landlord. I accept that this is controversial. I accept that there has been quite a bit of criticism of my proposal—people suggesting that I am hard-hearted. It is quite the opposite. I would like to see these vulnerable families getting back into the rental market, because what is the alternative if they cannot? The alternative is that they move in with family, if possible, or friends, into very overcrowded housing accommodation, which is often a recipe for great anxiety, stress and perhaps even domestic violence. Even if there is not domestic violence, young people who are trying to do well at school have no space at all in overcrowded accommodation to be able to study and do their homework for school. That is a really appalling situation and we can understand why there is this intergenerational dependency on welfare if people cannot get decent rental accommodation.

But I am not suggesting for a moment that the making of payments of rent assistance direct to landlords from Centrelink is some sort of overall solution. It would need to be considered only as part of a solution to ease the rental accommodation crisis in Australia. This government has no philosophical commitment to public housing. It seems to believe that everything can be done through the private sector, but the figures that I have cited demonstrate that that is not the case and that there is an argument for innovative financing methods for public housing in Australia to deal with the housing affordability crisis. My proposal would be only one part of that.

It is true that under current arrangements with Centrelink voluntary arrangements can be entered into, under the banner of Centrepay. Through Centrepay, if the Centrelink client agrees to it, Centrelink makes payments direct to service providers, whether they be electricity payments, telephone payments, rates or whatever. That can be done voluntarily. That is a good scheme, but in some circumstances maybe it does make sense to make those rent assistance payments direct to the landlord. But there is absolutely no doubt that rent assistance itself has failed to keep up with the very big increases in rents in Logan City and other parts of Queensland and indeed Australia.

The sorts of figures that I have cited in terms of the huge increases in demand for crisis accommodation and crisis financial assistance tell us that there are huge problems in disadvantaged areas in particular. I was honoured to be asked to participate in the launching of Sexual Violence Awareness Month in Logan City. A number of speakers participated in a candle-lighting ceremony, including the member for Woodridge, Desley Scott, and victims themselves. As it was last year, it was a very emotional and moving experience. Each year, they have a rally or a march called ‘Reclaiming the night’. I argued that we should reclaim not only the night but the day, the month and the year, because there is no place for sexual violence and domestic violence in our great country. I believe that we should be shining a light on it. I acknowledge that the government has run an advertising campaign on domestic violence, indicating to victims of domestic violence that they do have rights to be protected from the scourge of domestic violence. It is not acceptable. As a community, we should all share and join in that sentiment and do whatever we possibly can to minimise sexual violence in our communities.

Sexual violence is not the only form of violence or abuse. Child abuse is rampant not only in Queensland but also throughout Australia. Barely a week goes by without the media reporting shocking cases of child abuse in our country. I have been following this as one of the founders of Parliamentarians Against Child Abuse and the latest statistics are that there were 46,000 substantiated cases of child abuse in 2005. That is a massive increase on earlier years. There has been an even larger increase in the number of notifications of child abuse, which is now a quarter of a million a year.

There has been quite a bit of thinking about the notifications and whether the using of state-run systems to handle them is a positive development. It was certainly very confronting to hear from NAPCAN that this great increase in notifications is not by any means all good news. I would have thought that increased notifications meant that more defenceless kids at least have a chance because these allegations of domestic violence against them are at least coming to light, which allows the authorities to deal with it. But in all jurisdictions the authorities simply cannot cope.

There have been more notifications, but it is like advising an overcrowded hospital with rampant infections that there are more problems. When there are infections in the hospital and it cannot cope, we are not necessarily better off. Anything that we as parliamentarians can do to raise awareness of issues such as sexual violence and child abuse can only be for the common good. These matters must always transcend political debate and rivalries. Every parliamentarian, of whatever political persuasion, should do everything that they possibly can to help and defend the defenceless: children who otherwise have no rights and who are bashed in their own homes, sexually abused or neglected.

We know some of the consequences of this abuse. In the order of 70 per cent of women prisoners were abused in one way or another by the age of 16. We can see the consequences of abuse and, tragically, it tends to become a cycle of abuse. The abused know no other way of reacting under stress in their own families than the way that they experienced it—that is, through abuse. You tend to get a perpetuation of abuse by the victims of abuse and this is a great tragedy for our country. We say we are a very wealthy country—and, we assert, a very fair and egalitarian society—but the reality is that the authorities and voluntary organisations advise us that, in this period of unprecedented prosperity, there is unprecedented sadness, tragedy and crisis in families. We all have a responsibility to deal with it.

This government, in a very small but highly commendable way, is playing a part. But surely with the wealth and prosperity that we have—and hopefully with the good will of all sides of parliament—we can do far better. We must work together—not against the states, but with them—to develop early childhood development programs, early intervention programs and even prenatal programs to support families who are vulnerable. A lot is now known about the factors that contribute to vulnerability. We can identify these early; there is an enormous amount of literature on this. Let us as parliamentarians do everything we possibly can to make sure our society is far more just, tolerant and compassionate.

Kay Hull (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today is one of those days when as a member you have the opportunity to be part of the changing of the circumstances in people’s lives and you certainly welcome it. Today I welcome the opportunity to rise to speak on the Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2006 Budget Measures) Bill 2006. In particular, I want to mention the life-changing piece of legislation that is coming into the House today on behalf of the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough.

This legislation provides for the inclusion of the land adjacent to a dwelling house in a principal home. This will see effect given to something that has been of long concern to many members in this House. I pay tribute to some of my colleagues—particularly Kay Elson—who, along with me, have continually raised the issue of curtilage and the difficulty that it has imposed on people in her electorate. It is the backbenchers in this House that are certainly at times instrumental in bringing about change. Kay Elson has been a champion for this cause and I want to recognise that today. I also want to thank Minister Brough for having heard us on this issue and for trying to resolve it.

The inclusion of land adjacent to a dwelling house in a principal home is nowhere more relevant than in my electorate of Riverina. This measure, which will be introduced in January next year, is intended to assist our aged pensioners, carer payment recipients of age pension age and qualifying service pensioners living on farms and rural residential blocks of more than two hectares who have been excluded or received a reduced pension because of the assessable asset value of the land adjacent to their home. Subject to our criteria, this measure will increase the maximum amount of land that is exempt from the assets test from two hectares to encompass all of the land on one title that the person’s principal home sits on.

The current situation where we have a two-hectare exclusion zone for the principal residence has resulted in a particular circumstance for an elderly couple that I would like to raise in the House today to illustrate the very good reason why this legislation will be life changing for so many people. I have a constituent, an elderly man of 83 years, who was born in the house he resides in now. He has been married to his wife for some 60 years. My constituent has leukaemia and is a very ill man. He and his wife have no assets and no income. Recently we had a set of valuations from the Valuer-General. Their house sits on about 367 acres, all under the one title. It is close to a local tip facility and it has electricity easements all the way through it. The farm has been able to provide a menial income for all of these years. Now, sadly, due to the age of my constituents, they are unable to farm that piece of land. They met all the criteria for a pension then all of a sudden the Valuer-General came in and valued that piece of land. Their assets were too high because of the two-hectare exclusion zone rule and their pension was reduced so substantially that they are unable to afford to live.

I found that a very difficult situation. And this is not an isolated case; it does happen, particularly in the current climate conditions in my electorate of Riverina with the significant drought that encompasses all my electorate, including the irrigation areas. I found the sight of two very elderly people sitting clutching each other and sobbing in my office a very difficult thing to deal with. It was so gratifying to know that if we can get many of these people through to the introduction of this in January next year then, finally, after all these years, we will be able to resolve this issue.

For people who have an attachment to the land in excess of 20 years, who are no longer able to farm that piece of land to raise an income from it and who are able to satisfy all the pension eligibility tests, if their house sits on the same title, the area of land that the house sits on will be excluded from the assets. This has not come soon enough for me.

I am particularly happy and relieved that the minister is introducing this piece of legislation to remedy a situation that has severely impacted on these people. The value of this piece of land, as valued by the Valuer-General, increased to above $470,000. That certainly meant a significant downsizing of the pension for this elderly couple.

This investment of more than $173 million will improve the treatment of rural land under the social security and veterans’ affairs pension assets test. It will mean a fairer assets test for people who have had their home and adjacent land held on the same title document, provided they have a long-term attachment of 20 years or more to their home. The government does not believe that older Australians should be forced to move from a home in which they have lived for many years to ensure an adequate income in retirement. I express my heartfelt thanks to the minister for this piece of legislation because it has been an anomaly of great concern to me for a long time.

These couples are no longer able to work their farm due to their age, so it is important to make sure that in the guidelines we put in place for land that is used for domestic purposes and has the same title as the family home all things are taken into consideration. The person or persons must show that it is not reasonable for them to take alternative action that will enable them to use the land to support themselves.

It is quite unfair that such a couple would be penalised under current provisions. In this current drought crisis that engulfs and swamps my entire electorate it would be unfair to see them being disadvantaged because they are unable to utilise their farming property because they cannot get a share farmer or afford to employ someone to work for them. Who would want to share farm under the current conditions we are experiencing in the Riverina? Yet this couple and many other couples are being impacted upon enormously. It is a very clear example of why the members and the backbenchers in this government have fought so hard to have this issue addressed. Again, I cannot help but thank those backbenchers who have stood up and been counted on this issue.

To access the fairer assets test the people who are living in these conditions must show that the land with commercial potential is being used productively to generate an income. The government recognises that some pensioners will have the potential to make an income for themselves while others will have lease arrangements in place or have the younger generation working on their properties. Other properties, such as many rural residential properties, will have very little capacity to generate an income. This is why this bill is so welcome—because it recognises all of these facts.

The measure will enable some rural aged pensioners, carer payment recipients of age pension age and qualifying service pensioners to have all of the land adjacent to the family home that is held on the same title document excluded from the assets test. This will increase pension payments or allow pensions to be paid to these rural people for the first time, and that will improve their living standards while allowing them to stay in their long-term family home. Most meaningfully, it will help retired farmers who are no longer able to work their properties to stay on the land while encouraging the land to be worked to its potential by those who are capable.

The government has taken seriously community concerns over whether older Australians in rural and city areas were treated equally. When city dwellers recently experienced substantial increases in the value of their home properties, they still were not being asset tested, whereas if you were on a rural property and it had been your home for a long period of time you were asset tested for all but a two-hectare zone.

The whole area of land adjacent to the dwelling house on one title document, regardless of its size or dollar value, can be excluded from the assets test provided the other criteria have been met. So anyone who meets the criteria to be eligible for an age pension will have the benefit of this piece of legislation being enacted in January. To be eligible, our pensioners must qualify for the age pension, carer payment or service pension and the pension or supplement must be payable to them. A pensioner receiving DSP may also choose to move over and receive an age pension instead of a disability support pension to take advantage of this concession, which is another very welcome piece of the legislation.

A number of factors, including the commercial potential of the land and personal circumstances such as health and the family situation, will be taken into consideration when determining whether a pensioner is making effective use of the land. Pensioners will be encouraged to make effective use of productive land to generate an income, and the capacity to use the land or arrange for someone else to use the land to generate an income will be taken into consideration when determining whether the pensioner is making effective use of the land. Any income passed to the pensioner from the commercial use of the land will be assessed—as it should be—under the normal income test in the usual way. But, if they are not receiving any income, are enabling productive land to be used but are not receiving benefits from that productive land, and they meet the pensions test, they will certainly be able to continue to live in their family home.

A local solicitor, Mr Bill Thompson, recently brought to me some concerns he had with the assets test. He wrote to all the members of the House of Representatives, including the minister. His issues were that everyday farmers, including small horticulturalists—especially those around the Griffith and Leeton areas—would not qualify because their land was not primarily used for domestic purposes. He was also concerned that these new guidelines allow farmers who have just a living area and who have family members operating the farm an opportunity to qualify for the pension. He mentioned a very significant issue facing rural Australia, with the significant number of smaller viable farms having to be sold in the past 20 years so that parents could retire, which has resulted in a number of young farmers having to change careers and leave our smaller communities.

If a pensioner has retired and a close family member is working the land to its potential, it is considered to be an effective use of the land. Any income going to a close family member will not be assessed as being received by the pensioner—which will be, I am sure, welcomed by those people who were concerned about this. The close family member is defined as the partner of the relevant person. It could also include a child or a family member of the person. The decision maker may also determine that a person be treated as if they were a close family member. This may cover situations involving stepchildren or foster children.

Times are really tough in rural Australia—never more so than in the Riverina with our ongoing drought conditions—and the number of young farmers choosing to take up other career options rather than staying on the land is unfortunately increasing. These measures for pension asset testing will alleviate some of the pressures in making these decisions.

As I said, it is one of those times when, as a member and as a backbencher, you get an opportunity to stand up and applaud improvements to legislation that has been in place for so very long. This new legislation has the precise intention of ensuring that those people with a long-term attachment—20 years or more—to a family farm or a family home on the same title as the farm will no longer be precluded from receiving the age care pension if their land is valued above asset. That has been a longstanding anomaly that, thankfully, has been picked up and accepted by this government.

The legislation will come into play from January 2007—in my view it cannot come soon enough—and I again thank the minister, Mal Brough, and his staff, in particular his chief of staff, David Moore, for taking time on this. I seem always to be paying tribute to David Moore because he has been of great assistance to the Riverina on so many occasions—whether it has been through taxation on irrigation, managed investment schemes and mass marketed schemes or other matters. It is always a pleasure to deal with his office, because they take the time to talk to backbenchers. They take the time to test. They take the time to focus-test their legislation, ensuring that all bases have been covered and that the intentions of the backbenchers working in these areas on a day-to-day basis as members for rural electorates have been recognised and delivered.

In my view, it will not please everybody—there are always those who want to find a certain loophole or a clause somewhere that has not been addressed. But the 20-year attachment will ensure that farmers and elderly people in my electorate are able to stay in their farm houses. As I mentioned, in one case an 83-year-old man, who is riddled with cancer and whose lovely wife is trying to care for him, is having to consider selling the home in which he was born and then having to worry about their pension being removed from them because the Valuer-General came in and valued their property. That will no longer happen after January next year when the criteria are met. Again, thank you to the minister and his office for the courtesy and the assistance they provided to ensure that we as federal members and representatives of these communities have been heard and certainly have been part of the delivery of this very good initiative.

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak very briefly, I must say, on the Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2006 Budget Measures) Bill 2006. I will start by noting the contribution of the member for Riverina, a person I have quite a deal of respect for. But she is always, you would have to say, a great booster for the Howard government. I listened to a contribution she made earlier today when she again was congratulating another minister for the great work that she maintains they have been doing. Maybe if I was in her situation I would be doing the same thing. There is certainly a consistency about aspects of her contribution which I am sure has been noted by elements of the frontbench.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She’s one of the few ones here that has had the guts to cross the floor!

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is true, as the member for Kennedy says. In that respect I fully understand what he means, but I guess maybe the flip side of that is that she is so keen on some of those who sit opposite. The legislation before the House is an omnibus bill which makes a number of changes to legislation within the social security portfolio. There are changes to the age pension and veterans entitlements assets test which will allow people of pension age who live on certain kinds of farms and rural residential properties to exempt the value of land on the same title as their primary residence from the pension assets test. Currently only the primary residence and an area of up to two hectares around it is exempt. This will give approximately 10,000 people of age pension age more access to age pension payments. There are changes to family assistance, social security administration and student assistance legislation to provide search and seizure powers for authorised officers to investigate and prosecute offences in relation to programs administered under these acts. There are also changes to existing provisions relating to crisis payments to establish a new ground upon which crisis payment can be received. And there is a series of miscellaneous changes to aged care and child support legislation to allow for information exchange between social security agencies to improve compliance.

In particular from Labor’s point of view I support the budget measures contained in the bill which will make changes to the assets test for people of pension age living in rural and regional areas and implement changes to crisis payment provisions. We do have some concerns, which the member for Sydney mentioned earlier today, with respect to some of these seizure powers, but I understand they will be looked at at the Senate committee level and I look forward to hearing the results of that consideration. We also support the proposals to improve information exchange between the agencies as long as appropriate checks and balances are in place.

As the shadow minister for veterans’ affairs I want to speak today specifically and briefly on the aspects of the bill that relate to the veterans community. I personally welcome some of the initiatives contained within this bill and recognise that they are positive steps. While these amendments will not affect a large number of veterans, those that the changes do apply to will readily welcome them. Labor believes in a veterans’ income system that is secure, stable, simple and fair. In particular, we remain strongly committed to the service pension system, which guarantees a decent income to qualifying veterans. We recognise that there are problems in the existing system, in particular under the existing assets test, which disadvantage veterans in receipt of the service pension or potential pension recipients who are living on the land.

Under the existing assets test, some veterans living on farms or large rural residential blocks find they are unable to support themselves because the value of the property their home is on excludes them from the pension. Some of these veterans are forced to sell their land and their family homes. Labor believes that veterans should not have to sell their family homes—where they have spent the best part of their lives—in order to support themselves. Accordingly, we support the government’s changes to the assets test which will exempt all property on the same title as the primary residence from the assets test where there is a long-term attachment to that land and where it would be unreasonable to realise the value of the land by selling or leasing it.

Recently at the RSL national congress in Perth this issue was raised with my office by a veterans advocate. They outlined the problems that one of their veterans back in South Australia was having with obtaining the service pension due to their farm. The farm and property were too big to meet any of the assets tests, yet they were too small to provide any form of income. This particular veteran was facing an extremely hard decision about whether or not they would have to sell their house that they had been in for decades. It is for these reasons that I welcome these changes. I can think of nothing worse than the government expecting people who have served this country overseas in conflict to have to sell their homes to support themselves.

We believe these measures are reasonable. However, we also believe there is more that the government could be doing to address disadvantages faced by veterans who are attempting to access the service pension as an entitlement. I have some concerns about the time it takes for the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to resolve different claims and about some of the methods used in investigating these claims. I do know that the claims process can be extraordinarily complex. I know that the department is always working hard to make the claims process easier, and I fully support their efforts in doing this.

The bill also proposes a series of changes to enhance information sharing between agencies in order to improve compliance with social security law. With respect to these changes, I would just like to note that Centrelink is currently not required to inform people when their carer payment is about to be cut off. We believe that it should be required to do so. The health of many veterans is often maintained to a substantial degree by their partners in their role as carers. There are 2.5 million carers in Australia who look after family members or friends with a disability, mental illness or chronic condition or who are frail aged. Carers make a great contribution to our society, by caring for their loved ones who may otherwise be taken out of the community, and to the economy more broadly. It is estimated that carers save the Australian economy approximately $20 billion annually by providing unpaid work.

Carers clearly contribute a great deal to the wellbeing of our veterans and to those in the broader community who may require assistance in their daily lives. They deserve our thanks and a heavy dose of respect. One way we can give this here is by improving communication mechanisms between relevant agencies and carers. Carers lead a very full and stressful life, and the last thing they should be expected to do is struggle with a large bureaucracy that has failed to communicate with them adequately with regard to their payments.

Labor support most of the measures contained in the bill as they relate to veterans. We support making the service pension assets test fairer for veterans living on farms and large rural residential properties. We do call for greater communication between Centrelink and carers with regard to changes in their payments. We also note that much more can be done to make it easier for qualifying veterans to access their service pension. As I said, the opposition support the main aspects of the bill and we wait to see what results from the Senate committee process. I wish the legislation a speedy movement to the other place.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very perturbed that when I first went into parliament some 32 years ago the only way that you could enter the house of a person was, really, by getting a piece of paper off a judge or at the very least a magistrate and now every pettifogging official known to man has the right with impunity to walk into your house. Inside the joint party room in Brisbane for some 20 years battle after battle was fought over this, and I can say with great pride that in 1989, when we left office, there were hardly any circumstances under which a person could enter your home without getting the authority of a judge or at the very least a magistrate. So I am very perturbed about that aspect of the Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2006 Budget Measures) Bill 2006.

Really it behoves the government and its members to make a stand on this. Having been a minister for the best part of a decade, and a very senior minister at that, I might add, I do not hesitate to say that, with the way the system works, you get the public servant who wants to make life easy for himself so he thinks he can just walk in anytime. I have to say that the power that these public servants exercise has gone to their heads. They get a real buzz out of this sort of thing.

We had a case in Mareeba where a very lovely young couple were at the rodeo with the person who is now the magistrate for that area. They were migrants to Australia. She was a very pretty girl and they had a lovely child, and David was looking after the child all day at the rodeo and having a tonne of fun. They were great citizens; they built this beautiful zoo for North Queensland, with lions and tigers. It was a very much needed adjunct to the tourist package we were able to offer in Far North Queensland for the people coming to Cairns in that region. And one morning at 6 o’clock the Nazis came in. That is what I would describe them as: Nazis. They kicked the door open, quite literally. She was feeding this little less-than-one-year-old baby at her breast, and she was in her pyjamas. She was terrified, and she ran into a corner and started screaming. She said, ‘Could I go to the toilet?’ and they said, ‘No, you will stay right there.’

This actually happened. It did not get anywhere near the amount of publicity that it should have got, and I have endeavoured to secure the names of the people and the officers in charge because they will go on a certain list that I keep, and they will cross my gun sights somewhere down the track. They proceeded, then—these same dreadful people—to bankrupt them and close down this magnificent accoutrement. What it was all over was that for two years the person had asked for the details of fencing, and since after two years he could no get it—he had already purchased the animals—he proceeded to build the fencing in accordance with the game regulations that existed in South Africa, where all the big game reserves were. It was because he had done it without their express permission. It was not a matter of permits; he had the permits. They were the circumstances of the case.

I use this case to illustrate. This is Australia in 2000; this is not Germany in the 1930s. But every pettifogging official has the right to violate. If there is something that we inherited from our English forebears it is that an Englishman’s home is his castle. If there was one great precept outside of the rule of law and habeas corpus, ‘an Englishman’s home is his castle’ would be that third great proposition. We inherit it from the English-speaking race.

The corollary of that, if I was to put it in Australian terms, would be that in Australia in my backyard I am King Billy. In at least one little place on earth, I am the boss. Those members of the House who want to stay in this place—because about a quarter of you will be thrown out over the next six years; the actual statistic, I think, is that something like 20 per cent gets thrown out of this place every six years—richly deserve to be thrown out if they sit there supinely and allow the powers to go to little pettifogging officials to violate the sacredness of that little bit of space in which a person is king. No-one is allowed to be king; in this place we are the kings. The people are never the kings.

But if you want to be popular then the most popular politician in all of democratic history, dating back to the Romans and the Greeks, was in fact ‘the Kingfisher’, Hughie Long of Louisiana. He used to have a song and, whatever public or social function he was at, he would demand that everyone sing his song: Every Man a King. He would put his right fist up and he would say, ‘Every man a king,’ and people loved him. They still speak with reverence, and when there was a famous thing done recently on the television old people had tears in their eyes at the remembrance of Hughie Long, who believed that every man was a king. Well, not in this place. Every little pettifogging official is the king over you, and he can walk into your little domain and treat you like dirt.

The worst rioting that occurred when I was Aboriginal affairs minister was on my third day as minister. One of the great things that we prided ourselves on was that there was no rioting by the time I had finished as minister. But the rioting was precipitated because the government of the day had decided, in their wisdom, to ban alcohol. There is a case on Palm Island which is getting nationwide publicity, where the current state government has banned alcohol. White people can drink but black people are not allowed to in the state of Queensland. We took that legislation off the books in Queensland and then I personally as minister took away the regulations, I am proud to say.

But these little pettifogging officials came in and told the gentleman who later on was the chairman of the council there—he was a very popular figure there—that he could not drink and to hand over all of his grog. This public official, in the presence of his children, went over and smashed the stubby out of his hands, against the wall. The little children ran out crying, and, like every decent Australian would, he flattened the public official. He was put in jail for two years for doing that—in jail for two years for defending himself in his own home and countermanding the humiliation that was put upon him and terrifying for his children. So I am very worried about this aspect of the bill.

Having said that, I am enormously pleased to see the provisions in here for women—let’s face it—who are suffering domestic violence. I was up to my neck in the terrible Kyte case, which came to national prominence in Charters Towers. The insurance company would not pay the money to those poor people. Their house had burnt down and the insurance company agreed to pay $300 for a house that was insured for $14,000. This is going back a long time now. Without going into the details of the case, this was absolutely outrageous. This poor woman with her five kids was out under a tree. Some friends had given her tarpaulins and someone had given her a tiny caravan, but her husband, a reformed alcoholic, went back on the grog and gave her a terrible time. She had no alternative housing. This bill provides alternative housing. If we had been able to provide her with alternative housing, what followed would not have occurred.

Because of the situation, it was decided by the authorities—rightly or wrongly—to put the husband in a mental institution. He escaped from the mental institution and cut her throat from ear to ear. She was discovered by her 15-year-old daughter, and the husband was under the bed with a carving knife in his hand and with blood everywhere. Five little children had no father and no mother. It was a case where I think that, if we had had these sorts of provisions that are being put forward today, the terrible tragedy would not have occurred and those five little children would have had a father and a mother to bring them up.

The most important aspect of the bill from where I sit is the provisions enabling people to access the old age pension. I could give case after case here but I do not want to take up the time of the House all day. I will give two cases. A very generous couple in Innisfail, people very close to me, literally gave all of their properties to their kids. They did it thinking that they could get the pension. They did not get the pension and they had to go back to their children to get money. I am oversimplifying it but that is roughly the case. They had a little bit of money. But the children were in such dire straits in the sugar cane industry that they were not able to help out. They were flat out staying alive themselves. I truly believe that those people actually went hungry during those years because of the pernicious, restrictive provisions that exist and the attitude that governments in Australia have had to the farming community—the brutalisation of country Australia that has taken place.

The second case happened quite recently. One of maybe the most prominent farmers in Australia but most certainly in North Queensland got up in a meeting and said, ‘I’m working harder now’—at 65 or 66 years of age; whatever it is, he is over pension age—‘than when I came to Australia when I was 20.’ He said that one of his boys had just walked off the place because, even though he is one of the biggest farmers in Australia in the category of farming that he is in—he is a very big farmer—he just cannot make enough cash flow thanks to the likes of Woolworths and Coles and the previous government that has allowed them to take 82 per cent of the marketplace. As big as you want to get, you still cannot make a living! One of his boys has had to leave the farm, which was heartbreaking for him.

We pride ourselves on being peasants; we are closely attached to the land. I always find it remarkable that people come into this place and talk about Aboriginal land rights and cry about the Aboriginals’ relationship to the land. I would say that many more whitefellas than original Australians have committed suicide and died in their efforts to try and hold on to their land. Many Aboriginals died fighting for their land, but I think a lot more whitefellas in the years since have suffered the same fate.

Going back to this particular person, he falls short of the requirements in the act and so he cannot get a pension. His wife is now very sick and he is not enjoying good health but he has to stagger on. There is no other way out for these people except to walk off their farm. There is not enough money for him to stay alive, there is not enough money for his son to pay someone to come in and work full time to take his father’s place and there is not enough money to buy his father out. Family after family is caught in this vice throughout Australia.

This place does not seem to understand what is happening throughout Australia. I see the member for Parkes here. With all due respect, it would be a good idea if he understood that agriculture in this country is simply closing down. Our sheep numbers are down 50 per cent; our cattle numbers are down 26 per cent. The sugar production industry is collapsing completely. At this stage we have only lost about 12 per cent of our production, but it will be catastrophic the way it is going. I cannot speak with authority about the wheat industry but I most certainly can about the dairy industry. Milk production is down 10 per cent and butter and cheese production is down 20 per cent. That is five of the six major agricultural items falling straight through the floor.

I have said on many occasions in this House that there is no excuse for it. We just have to follow Brazil or the United States on the ethanol trail. The National Party wonders why they are spat upon in Queensland, and they are literally spat upon. I would hate to be that senator they have. When he goes out there, they hate him. The reason for that is that we have tried to get ethanol out of the National Party, which held the two key portfolios in the federal government. And what have we got off them? I will tell you what we have got: ethanol production and consumption in Australia has dropped 70 per cent. They have taxed ethanol at 12c a litre and, quite frankly, promoted all of the disadvantages.

Mr Truss as late as last week put out a press statement saying that all mandating will do is introduce ethanol from Brazil, as if you would go from nought to 10 per cent overnight. Of course, every single other country phases it in over a period of time. Doesn’t this man know anything? In the United States they have a four-year phase-in period for five per cent; they are almost at five per cent now. I am sure when they get through that four years they will phase in another five per cent and move to 10 per cent. Their government has already said that they will be replacing 75 per cent of their oil imports with, inter alia, ethanol. And they unashamedly say that that is to help rural communities in the United States. A major factor is to protect their source of oil, of course, and to provide an alternative. That is their major reason for going down this pathway. But they do not hesitate to say, ‘This is to provide jobs for our people in rural United States.’ Brazil, quite unashamedly, went down that pathway and technologically is now miles ahead of Australia. We have to go over there for almost all of our agricultural technology.

I will tell you what has happened in the sugar industry in particular. Every time I go to Innisfail there are another five or 10 farms that have just sold out. People in this place seem to think that if you go broke with sugar you will go into something else. That is not what is happening. This land is being sold to lifestylers. You can buy 100 acres in paradise, with jungles, waterfalls and everything—it is magic country. So they just buy the land. Personally, I must admit that I thought we could let it go back to being a pristine wilderness. I listened to a talk by the head of the Wet Tropics Management Authority, a retired general, General Grey. He said that the strongest argument that we have for preserving our agriculturists is what has happened in Mareeba, where the deregulation by the Keating government of the tobacco industry, and the subsequent inaction by the current government, led to the complete collapse and close-down of that industry. That is now taking place in Victoria as well.

What happened in Mareeba is most relevant to this bill. The old people simply walked off their land. They could not make a living out of it. They could not sell it at any reasonable price to meet their debts. The land has been bought up by lifestylers and sits fallow. It has not gone back to a pristine wilderness—it grows weeds. I would not have believed what General Grey said except that I recently inspected a property outside of Babinda—a young man wanted to buy it. It had been 200 acres under sugar cane. I walked over six acres, and the entire six acres was completely covered by Singapore daisy and by the giant sensitive weed. Both of them are dreadful scourges of the land in Far North Queensland and are declared noxious weeds. The young man told me it was all covered—the whole 200 acres. So there will not be any pristine wilderness or regrowth of trees. The people that have bought it cannot possibly afford to keep ploughing out the giant sensitive weed and all of those other things. And to put the land under trees would cost an enormous amount of money, and they do not want to do that. They want to have a nice place to live and a nice lifestyle. They do not want to be sitting in a monoculture plantation, that’s for certain.

The alternative to doing such things is what has been happening to date: these poor people have had to sell out to lifestylers and the land has fallen into a shocking state. These are the arguments put up by the Europeans for the protection of their farmers. Every country will defend with aggression their right to keep farming and agriculture going in their countries, except our governments in Australia do not. We get a lecture on free markets or free trade every time we open our mouths about whether we should have ethanol. And hasn’t that been marvellously successful! In a magazine that comes out of Melbourne there is an article by John Corboy, the man who rescued SPC and arguably now the biggest farmer in Australia since Peter Menegazzo died. (Time expired)

John Cobb (Parkes, National Party, Minister for Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2006 Budget Measures) Bill 2006 gives effect to a number of the 2006 budget initiatives which will boost support for rural age pensioners and victims of domestic violence. The initiatives will also improve the integrity of the social security and family assistance systems.

The government has responded to community concerns over the equity of treatment of older Australians living in rural areas and city areas whose properties have increased substantially in value but remain exempt from the assets test. Currently, people of age pension age may be precluded from all or a part of their pension because only their home and adjacent land of up to two hectares is exempt from the assets test, even though they might have a very good reason for not being able to better use the excess land to deliver an income.

The measures will increase pension payments or allow, for the first time, pensions to be paid to rural people who have at least 20 years attachment to their land, improving their living standards while allowing them to stay in their long-term family homes. It will also help retired farmers who are no longer able to work their properties to stay on their land while encouraging the land to be worked to its potential by those who are capable.

I should say, while on that point, that I think all members of the House have shown their total support for this provision of the bill. I know that in all areas of rural Australia it will certainly help an awful lot of farmers and retiring farmers. The bill will also provide Centrelink with the tools to detect and investigate serious and complex cases of fraud. Over recent years, Centrelink’s investigative capacity has been developing so as to be able to detect, investigate and prosecute more serious fraud committed against social security law.

To put this capability to its best use in protecting the integrity of the payment system, this bill introduces provisions for the entry and search of premises and for copying and seizing material relevant to pursuing those investigations. These provisions will mirror provisions already available to other Commonwealth agencies such as the Health Insurance Commission, the Australian Taxation Office, the Child Support Agency and the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs in their similar activities. We do realise there are those who have concerns about this, but it does mirror provisions already available to other agencies and it has been referred to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

The bill also establishes a further ground on which to qualify for crisis payment. People who remain in their own homes after being subject to domestic violence may now be eligible for support in the form of a one-off payment of around $230. This bill recognises that some people who have been subject to domestic or family violence may choose to remain in their own homes. This is, I believe, commonsense, and the crisis payment will help fund the boost of securing the person’s home and making other practical arrangements.

Lastly, the bill will make additional amendments to relevant provisions dealing with information management, as part of the government’s ongoing program to improve the accuracy of payments and to reduce debts. Real estate assets have been identified as a particular area in which valuations held in the system may no longer be accurate, often because of rising property values. To reduce the possibility of incorrect payments, the law will be amended to enable Centrelink to check land title records held by state and territory governments.

Furthermore, the amendments will allow the Department of Health and Ageing to give Centrelink information about people permanently entering residential aged care so the data can be checked against information on people receiving carer payment. This will identify cases where caring responsibilities have ceased and reduce the likelihood of people receiving incorrect payments. The Privacy Commissioner has been consulted to ensure safeguards are in place to protect personal information through these new processes.

We do thank very much those members who have provided so much help and advice in pursuing this alteration to the legislation, in particular the member for Lindsay, the member for Cowper, the member for Riverina, the member for Greenway and many others on both sides of the House for showing their support for the bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.