Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Bradfield proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The need for a clear commitment to protect vulnerable Australians and ensure they benefit from a strong economy.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Brendan Nelson (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Earlier this afternoon, a censure motion was moved against the Prime Minister and the Australian government. That censure motion was moved because on this side of the House we do not have confidence that the government and the Prime Minister in particular understand the importance of building a strong economy so you can actually assist the weak, the sick, the unfortunate and, in this case, especially carers, the elderly and the frail. You do not attack the vulnerable to make a strong economy. In fact, if the government really wants to pick on someone its own size, it should go no further than the state governments, which at the moment have in excess of $40 billion of debt—which is headed over the next three years to more than $80 billion. Instead of that, the government and the Prime Minister in particular, as the chairman of the so-called razor gang, have chosen to use Australia’s carers and the vulnerable as human shields in their campaign against inflationary pressures.

I ask: is this government so obsessed with media management and bread and circuses that it has become blind to what, in the end, is the real purpose of government? Has it become so deaf to the pleas of anguished despair coming from this nation’s most vulnerable that it simply cannot say with certainty that these lump sum cash payments to them are guaranteed? Why is it so hard for the Prime Minister, given every opportunity through questions and through a censure motion, to stand at the dispatch box and say not only or so much to this House but, more importantly, to the 400,000 carers that are behind this and those Australians above the age of 65 and the elderly, especially, that are so reliant on that cash payment of $500, that they will receive the payments of $1,600 and $500? Why is the Prime Minister—and the government—not able nor man enough to actually guarantee them that they will receive a lump sum payment? Instead of that we have had these mealy-mouthed words: ‘They won’t be worse off. They won’t be a cent worse off.’

We on this side—and I, as a former cabinet minister for six years—know only too well that, as you go through the budget process, there is debate. There is debate about the defence budget, about the health budget, about the education budget, about roads—there is a whole debate about those things. But I say to the Prime Minister: when he gets back to the Lodge tonight, he should ask one of his staff to get for him a recording of his contribution in the censure motion on this issue of carers and seniors. He needs to sit down in a quiet place and actually have a look at himself and listen to what he was saying. He sounds more like—and increasingly looks like—a bureaucrat running an economy and running a public service than he does a Prime Minister, leading a group of men and women, who should be committed to building a better and more caring Australia. The one thing the Prime Minister has not got on his balance sheet is people. In the end, that is what it is all about. I go, for example, to Mary-Lou Carter. She said to the Daily Telegraph on 11 March:

If this was about symbolism, it’s a terrible thing to have to prove how tough you are by attacking the weakest in the community.

The chief executive of Carers Australia, Joan Hughes, said to Channel 7 on 8 March:

I don’t get why they would be picking on some of the most vulnerable people, who are really struggling to survive. It’s a real kick in the face for many family carers.

There is Mr Ashley Norman, a 73-year-old man in Mackay who is dying, cared for by his wife of 52 years, Pat. He said to the Australian on 7 March:

My wife gets $100 a fortnight to look after me.

                  …              …              …

She’s got to do everything I did, everything she did and care for me like a baby.

What he’s (Kevin Rudd) doing is criminal. To take $1600 off us after giving it to us every year for four years, it’s criminal.

He also said of the Prime Minister, on the ABC program Lateline on 10 March: ‘He is an absolute Jekyll and Hyde. Prior to the election, for God’s sake, everyone thought he was a wonderful man. Since he’s been elected, he’s turned into an absolute ogre.’

There are Pam and Wal Beckhouse, whose 37-year-old son John is autistic and profoundly deaf. Pam said this to Channel 10 on 7 March:

I just can’t believe that a Labor government would do that. The carers have given up a lot to do that caring, and they don’t deserve to be treated like rubbish.

Wal said:

There’s a lot of cranky people out there.

That is an understatement. There are a lot of cranky people out there, but they are more than cranky. These are desperate people who live quiet lives of desperation trying to look after people whom they love and, in the process, saving this country an enormous amount of money in the effort that they make for those they love and for whom they care.

I say to the Prime Minister, after more than three months as the Prime Minister of Australia: whatever you do, Prime Minister, remember, in the end, it is about building a better society; it is about building a more caring society; it is about reaching out to people who feel they have neither power nor a voice in this country and making absolutely certain that decisions are made with them foremost in mind. Whatever the bureaucrats have told you and whatever you tell yourself as a former bureaucrat, the most important thing the Prime Minister needs to do at the moment is to reassure these 400,000 carers and to reassure pensioners, seniors, elderly and frail that they will receive the lump sum cash payment in this year’s budget.

Whilst, Prime Minister, as a bureaucrat being driven by a bunch of bureaucrats, you sound like a man dealing with a balance sheet rather than a man who is actually grappling with day-to-day human struggles and desperate concern to look after others in greater need than yourself, just remember that in the end, in addition to income and expenditure, the government’s balance sheet must always include people. This is about human beings. This is about dignity of human life. As far as we on this side are concerned, and on behalf of the 400,000 carers, the seniors, the elderly and the frail in this country, we say to you, Prime Minister: be honest and open with them and guarantee them that they will receive their lump sum payment. In doing so, whatever the niceties of the bureaucrats and the balance sheets, that will give more comfort and certainty for these people—some of whom will not even live until the budget—as to how they will be able to manage their finances in the year ahead.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It appears that the Leader of the Opposition could not even find five minutes more of hypocrisy to fill his speech—he finished five minutes early.

The hide of the opposition knows no bounds. Let us deal first with the matter of carers bonuses. The opposition leader says that the government are ignoring carers because we will not guarantee, on 11 March, the exact detail of what will be announced in the budget; we will not outline, on 11 March, every last dollar that will be in the budget in relation to carers. It is instructive to go back and look at the record. At the 2004 budget—the first budget that introduced the bonus for carers—the then Treasurer, the member for Higgins, said:

Tonight I announce that around 80,000 people on Carer Payment will receive an additional one-off payment of $1,000.

That was announced on 11 May 2004, not 11 March as it is today. On 10 May 2005 the then Treasurer said:

… tonight I announce as I did last Budget …

So there was not this great concern from the Liberal Party that in March or February or April they had to put carers’ minds at ease about whether they were going to get the bonus; they left it until budget night. In 2006 what did the then Treasurer say? He said:

… tonight I announce as I did in the past two Budgets an additional $1,000 …

That was announced on 9 May, not 9 March. The previous government left it until budget night. Then, on 8 May last year, 2007, what did the then Treasurer say? He said:

I also announce tonight, for the fourth consecutive year, that recipients of the Carer Payment will receive a bonus of $1,000 and recipients of the Carer Allowance a bonus of $600 for each eligible person in their care.

So, for each of the last four years, on budget night the then Treasurer outlined that these bonuses would be paid. The then government did not take it upon themselves in March or April or February to make that announcement; they announced it in May. In opposition, they now say that it is incumbent upon the government of the day to clear this up on 11 March, that it is outrageous, callous, heartless, unless we tell people on 11 March exactly how the payments will be paid.

Of course, at each of those budgets never once did the Treasurer of the day say, ‘And I am announcing tonight that we are budgeting for this into the future.’ Never once did he say, ‘I am announcing tonight that it will be in the forward estimates.’ Never once did he say, ‘We are going to put money aside going into the future to provide certainty to carers.’ On every occasion, he said it was a one-off bonus. And yet the hypocritical opposition waltz in here and have the hide to suggest that this government is not being caring when it comes to carers. Being lectured by this mob about vulnerable people is like being lectured by Paris Hilton on public modesty. Their hide knows no bounds. If hypocrisy were a crime, they would all be serving time at Her Majesty’s pleasure, because this is a cheap political stunt from a desperate opposition.

These people have the hide to come in here and lecture us about carers. More importantly, they have the hide to come in here and lecture us about vulnerable people generally. Of course carers and our elderly are vulnerable people, but there are more examples. The people who had the hide to propose this matter of public importance are, to a man and a woman, the same people who voted for Work Choices—not once, not twice but on multiple occasions. The number of vulnerable people in this country will be reduced dramatically the day that the stain of Work Choices is removed from the legal record of this country, when this government is able to remove Australian workplace agreements and Work Choices from the official record of the laws of this country. If you need any evidence of that, let us have a look at the list that the Deputy Prime Minister released earlier this year of the working conditions that vulnerable people had taken off them by the previous government. Seventy per cent of AWAs removed shift work loadings—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We’re talking about carers!

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are talking about the MPI on vulnerable people. Sixty-eight per cent removed annual leave loadings, 65 per cent removed penalty rates, 63 per cent removed incentive based payments and bonuses, 61 per cent removed days to be substituted for public holidays, 56 per cent removed monetary allowances, 50 per cent removed public holidays payments, 49 per cent removed overtime loadings, 31 per cent removed rest breaks and 25 per cent removed declared public holidays. The limited data revealed that 75 per cent of the 1,500 AWAs sampled did not provide for a guaranteed wage increase. Do not come in here and lecture us about vulnerable people. You created vulnerable people. We know you are in favour of vulnerable people; that is why you created so many in your 11 years in office, with your Work Choices regime, which the Australian people passed judgement on on 24 November.

It would not be so bad if the opposition had learnt their lesson. It would not be so bad if they had recognised that the Australian people had passed judgement on 24 November and Work Choices was now dead. Over the last few days we saw the unedifying spectacle of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying that the opposition neither support nor oppose the government’s moves to eradicate Work Choices. This is her grand plan: to neither support nor oppose the government’s moves to abolish Work Choices. Billy Snedden-like, she says, ‘I have the solution: we’ll neither support nor oppose it.’ No wonder the Australian people have come to the conclusion that the Liberal Party have lost their way.

I will say one thing about the former Prime Minister: at least we knew where he stood. At least we knew what he believed in. At least we knew—as strongly as we disagreed with it—that he believed in Work Choices. These people refuse to admit it. The opposition refuse to guarantee how they will vote on Work Choices, because they neither support nor oppose it. They just do not get it. They just do not get the message that the Australian people gave them about vulnerable people. They think that they can score a cheap political point on the backs of hardworking carers in this country. They think that they can use that as the way out of their political problems, as the way out of their leadership speculation. Well, they cannot, because the Australian people know what they really think about vulnerable people. The Australian people know what they really think about workers and working families who are vulnerable—the industrial relations system had its balance tipped so far in one direction that the Prime Minister of the day became the second Prime Minister in Australian history to lose his seat.

The Australian people see through this mob, and coming in here and posturing about vulnerable people will not work. Don’t lecture us about putting people first. Don’t come in here and lecture us about how important it is that the balance sheet includes people when you imposed Work Choices on the Australian people—the longest suicide note in Australian political history, which the Australian people passed judgment on.

We had the spectacle of the former minister for workplace relations on Four Corners just a couple of weeks ago saying that members of the cabinet, when he took over the portfolio, did not know that vulnerable people could have working conditions removed under Work Choices. He said:

Quite frankly when I took over the job I don’t think many ministers in Cabinet were aware that you could be worse off under WorkChoices and that you could actually have certain conditions taken away without compensation.

Liz Jackson said:

You’re saying to me that Cabinet colleagues were unaware that you could be worse off?

The member for North Sydney said:

Some were, yeah, yep.

Well, they have not learned.

Of course, there is another category of vulnerable people in this country. They are the people who are vulnerable because of the prospect of losing their homes. They are the people who are at the tipping point at the moment, who are wondering how many more interest rate increases there will be because the previous government could not get inflation under control—the people throughout Western Sydney, represented by the member for Lindsay, the member for Blaxland, me, the member for Fowler and the member for Reid, who are struggling in the killing fields of Western Sydney mortgages and who have the highest repossession rates in Australian history. They are vulnerable people. That is why this government is taking difficult decisions. That is why this budget, delivered in May, will increase the surplus to 1.5 per cent of GDP to put downward pressure on interest rates—something that they could never do, something they could not be bothered to do. The previous Treasurer said, ‘Inflation is right where we want it.’ Well, it is not right where we want it for the people of Western Sydney who are struggling to keep their homes, because it is putting upward pressure on interest rates, and that is not something this government is prepared to stand by and watch, which they were.

Vulnerable people are people who are at risk of losing their homes. These are the people who the current alternative Treasurer, the member for Wentworth, said on his way through the doors into the House were overdramatising a 25 basis point increase in interest rates. He said: ‘We shouldn’t get too concerned about this; it’s only a 25 basis point increase. It’s only a quarter of one per cent. It’s being overdramatised.’ That is what they think about vulnerable people. They believe that it is a small increase in interest rates that should not be overdramatised. It is pretty dramatic if you are at risk of losing your home. It is pretty dramatic if your life’s dream, the house that you have built up, is in danger of being lost forever. These guys, who come in here and have the hide, the temerity and the hypocrisy to lecture us about vulnerable people, should go and look in the mirror. They should say: ‘We never put the carers bonus in the forward estimates. We never budgeted for it. We never had the wit to put aside the money in forward estimates. We never cared about the people who we put on the heap with our Work Choices reforms’—so-called reforms—‘and we certainly never cared about the people in danger of losing their houses in Western Sydney.’

The Australian people are smart enough to see through an opposition which suddenly discovers compassion on 25 November 2007, which suddenly decides that a balance sheet should include people and which suddenly decides that carers are so important that we should put aside money for them into the future, we should put the money in the forward estimates. The Australian people understand that this government will not make those sorts of mistakes. This government has made very clear that, when it comes to improving the resources for carers, we can always do better. Carers fulfil a vital role in society, and no government, frankly, will ever do enough—no government ever could do enough—for those people. But what we can do is, for the modest support we can give them, be fair dinkum about it and make an allocation for it going forward.

We will not leave them hanging until the budget night, every year on 9 or 10 May, for the Treasurer of the day to say, ‘Tonight I announce a bonus.’ What we will do is ensure that they are no worse off as a result of this budget and they have some guarantees going forward. That is an essential difference between the approach taken by the heartless government which preceded us and the government which was voted in by the Australian people on 24 November. The Leader of the Opposition is a member of the cabinet which approved Work Choices, which did not make an allocation for carers payments and which included the Treasurer who said, ‘Inflation is right where we want it, so we will not take any action on fiscal policy.’ It is the epitome of hypocrisy for him to come in here, blush, bluster and froth at the mouth in his confected way and say, ‘It’s time for the Australian people to be shown some compassion,’ because they are the people who, for 11 years, left vulnerable people hanging. They are the people who for four years put a bonus into the budget but did not allocate it going forward. They are the people who have made cheap political points off the back of hardworking carers, who have used carers as a political hobbyhorse to get themselves out of their current political difficulty, because nobody knows what they stand for anymore. The once great party that once stood for something has been reduced to crocodile tears and frothing at the mouth about this issue when it refused to make any allocation in the budget going forward. It refused to put the money aside; it had other priorities. Vulnerable people in Australia know this government will always have them as their first priority.

Margaret May (McPherson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One would have to wonder listening to the previous speaker if we actually are talking about the most vulnerable people in our communities—our senior Australians and our carers. And that is what we have been talking about this afternoon. I would ask the previous member: have you not been reading the press over the last four days? These are the people in Australia who have been threatened by your government. You are the ones who have gone out to the media talking about the bonus. You are the ones who are causing the anxiety and the stress for senior Australians. They are the ones feeling unsure of the future because you as a government will not commit to a bonus that they have received for the past four years, a bonus that has helped make their lives easier and given them a choice about what they do with that bonus. That bonus was paid because of our surplus. We gave back to the people who had given to us. You need to think about that too.

It is my belief that the Rudd government is dudding our carers and our pensioners. It is dudding them. This government is causing so much anxiety amongst our carers and amongst our aged. You will not commit to the bonus. All you will say is that they will not be worse off under a Rudd government under the budget to be brought down in May. But at no time today have we heard how they will not be worse off. You will not spell out and the Prime Minister will not spell out how those people are going to be paid. They do not want to be drip fed. Every caller to my office who has spoken about this wants a lump sum payment because it gives them choice about what they do with those extra dollars. It gives them choice about where those dollars are spent. There is a concern that, if it is paid as part of their age pension or as part of their carer payment, it can be taxed. Do we need to impose more taxes on older Australians or carers? Will you guarantee that it will not be taxed if it is paid as part of their age pension or their carer payment? I can tell you that people calling my office—the pension groups, the individuals—feel cheated. They feel let down by this government. They do not believe this government is listening because, if you had listened over the last few days, the Prime Minister would have come into this House today and told those Australians—those most vulnerable Australians—exactly what you are going to do in the budget. Instead, the anxiety and the worry are there, and they are going to be there for two months—two months of worrying about how this is going to be paid.

Opposition Member:

Despicable.

Margaret May (McPherson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is despicable. The Prime Minister says they will not be worse off, but that is not guaranteed because he will not outline how those people will not be worse off. Carers and senior Australians need to know where they stand in relation to the carers and the seniors bonus.

Today we have heard a lot about the carers in our communities. The Leader of the Opposition has detailed those personal stories. I ask today in the House a question of the Prime Minister on behalf of Mr Norman, who contacted my office: where are those seven letters? The Prime Minister has lost the seven letters. He has denied that a senior adviser said to Mr Norman that the carers bonus and the seniors bonus had been scrapped. That was a senior adviser advising Mr Norman that that was what was going to happen. We have heard Mr Norman’s story from the Leader of the Opposition today. He contacted my office on a number of occasions to discuss what was going on. This is the human face of what we are talking about today, the human face of the most vulnerable in our communities who are going to be the most affected.

You talk about us not being caring when we were in government, but for four years we paid these bonuses. We were able to pay them because of our good economic management. It was because we had a budget surplus that we were able to give back to those people. They came to expect that every year. They want to see it again this year. The former government left a budget surplus of double digits. Why can’t part of that surplus be given back to those people in our communities? I am sure everyone sitting on the other side of the House in government today has had calls to their office—concerns raised with every member in this House about these bonuses and whether or not they will be paid. I guarantee that every one of you has had a call, and I dare you to come to the dispatch box and say that you have not. These people need to be looked after.

I will say on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition that Mr Norman wrote to the Leader of the Opposition as well. Not only did the Leader of the Opposition visit Mr Norman but he actually answered his correspondence. Mr Norman wrote to the Leader of the Opposition on 13 February, and he received a response on 18 February. Does that say something about how much we care about people like Mr Norman? Our leader even went and visited Mr Norman. Where has your Prime Minister been? He certainly did not answer any of the letters written by Mr Norman outlining what was happening in his life.

The Minister for Ageing, in the newspapers in our local area at the weekend, said that she would represent local interests. I say to the Minister for Ageing that she is the national Minister for Ageing and she should be representing all older Australians, each and every one of those older Australians who have contacted all of us regarding these payments. It is important that they know that they have a representative sitting in this House who is prepared to go in to bat for them. They deserve nothing less.

Another thing that has also not been said is that this is going to affect veterans in our communities. Do you know that many of our veterans receive these bonus payments? These are the men and women who have served their country, and they have served it graciously, with dignity, under our flag. What are we doing about our veterans? Are we ignoring the contribution they have made to our country, the contribution made by all older Australians in building this wonderful nation of ours? They deserve this bonus. They deserve to know what this government is going to do when the budget is brought down in May. What they do not deserve is two months of uncertainty and anxiety.

The Prime Minister of this country needs to tell older Australians and carers what he intends to do in the May budget. You are the ones that have brought this to the media. Now you have all these older Australians worrying about their future, their bonus and whether or not they will have the flexibility and the choice to spend that very small bonus in the way in which it is most going to benefit them. They need to know it is coming. I call on the Prime Minister and the Minister for Ageing to ensure older Australians, our veterans and our carers that they will be looked after with a one-off bonus in the May budget this year, 2008, so they can make those choices about how that money is spent to the best advantage for themselves.

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

On the one hand in this debate we see that Labor is proposing a raft of measures to protect the vulnerable and to ensure that they benefit from a strong economy. On the other hand, I have to say, the previous government disappointed and failed to protect vulnerable Australians during their tenure in government. Appropriately, this debate has been about carers and pensioners. I would like to draw particular attention to people with disabilities, who are at the centre of potentially being the most vulnerable people in our community. If we look at the policies of the Rudd Labor government and contrast them with the scoreboard of the last 11 years, we can only draw the conclusion that if you are vulnerable in this society you are far better off having a Labor government in Canberra. When I try to assess what it means to be vulnerable, I think it is someone who lacks human rights and someone who lacks the opportunity of education and to enjoy wealth, home ownership and access to buildings, jobs and income.

I heard at question time very clearly—as we have heard over the last number of days—our Prime Minister saying that in this budget whatever will be done will be done fairly and that this government appreciates carers and seniors and the invaluable work they do for the community. In fact, we in the Labor Party have a century-long commitment to the fair go, and that certainly will not end on budget night. That is why, when carers and seniors compare their bonus payments this year with what they received last year, they will be no worse off. In addition, the government has increased the utilities allowance to $500 per year and for the first time ever it is extended to recipients of the carers payment.

We also know that carers and seniors need more financial certainty than they have been receiving in recent years. The bonuses, which the opposition is so loudly shouting about now, we found out about in budget speech after budget speech. They were one-off payments. There was never a guarantee under the old mob—no promise into the future, no commitment and, sadly, no plan. This is the system which we have inherited. This is the system we are working with. Mr Speaker, I can reliably assure you that things will get better.

The idea that Labor lacks compassion is simply laughable. As I have said in this place before, Labor has always been the party which cares about all Australians, which understands the need in our community for support and assistance. The Whitlam government was the first to commit to indexing pensions to cost-of-living increases. It delivered in its first six months the single mothers benefit, the first Commonwealth income support payment to single parents. In the late eighties and the early nineties the reformist Hawke and Keating governments introduced the family assistance package and child support payments, and replaced the unemployment benefit with the Newstart and Jobstart allowances, linking for the first time social security payments with an active non-punitive employment participation scheme. They introduced the sole parent pension, set at the same level as the age pension. They in fact replaced the invalid pension with the disability support pension. Let us not forget that in 1991 it was the superannuation guarantee charge which provided low-income Australian working families with the opportunity and prospect of some retirement income. This is why we go on with this debate: Labor has always been the party which has protected the most vulnerable in our community.

We hear the opposition say that they are now the models—that they are the Mother Theresas and St Bernards of compassion. Where was their compassion in 2003, when they planned to cut 30,000 families off the childcare allowance? What is it about Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, cystic fibrosis, epilepsy and PKU that would require those disabilities to be taken off the list of recognised conditions for the childcare allowance? It was only through the efforts of Labor, carer groups and, no doubt, a few quiet voices of conscience in the now opposition that these savage cuts were reversed.

In looking at my own portfolio area of disabilities and children’s services, I look at the opposition, who had the chance for 11 years to demonstrate their commitment in the disabilities area. I take nothing away from individual members of the opposition, such as the member for McMillan, who has already approached me about issues in disability and government. But, apart from those individual contributions, the scoreboard for the past 11 years has reflected that the most vulnerable in this community, people living with severe and profound disabilities, were missing out. In fact, the number of people pushed onto the disability support pension grew from 500,000 to 720,000. Indeed, this was despite the Howard government’s much vaunted, although significantly punitive, Welfare to Work. All that happened was that people were pushed off the pension, and the endeavours to punish people created fear. It was about money saving. It was never about people with disabilities.

I have had a look at some of the numbers which the OECD have reported about disability in Australia at the coming to power of Labor. The numbers are not pretty and do not reflect well on the treatment of the most vulnerable in this community in the last 11 years. There was a fall in spending on sickness benefits by the previous government. The employment rate of people with disability has been falling. It is under 40 per cent, which puts us well down the bottom of the charts in the OECD.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Hunt interjecting

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

The member for Flinders may not be aware of these numbers, because I assume that he is not saying that they are wrong. Under the previous government, the proportion of people with a disability below 50 per cent of the median income rose, so the relative poverty of people with disabilities increased. The incomes of people with a disability relative to those without a disability fell under the previous government. Why does it take four years for the Building Code of Australia to be reviewed to ensure that access to new premises lines up with the Disability Discrimination Act? Why did we have people acting as a disability discrimination commissioner for 11 years? They are the people who speak up on issues. Why was it that, in Australia, for the last 11 years, it was not viewed as a scandal if you could not go into a shop, if you could not catch an aeroplane, if you could not get a job or if you had half the educational outcomes of people without disabilities? Why were things not done by the previous government to remedy these issues? If you could not access entry to a shop, if you could not get a job, if you suffered relative poverty because of your skin colour or your gender, there would be a hue and cry, but what about someone with a disability—the most vulnerable in society—over whom we are now seeing crocodile tears in respect of the one-off bonus payment issue? Where was the now opposition, the previous government, when it came to championing the rights and equal treatment of people with disabilities? I am hearing a debate about protecting the most vulnerable, yet I look at the second-class treatment that people with disabilities have received and I realise that there has been something terribly unfair happening in Australia.

It was an initiative of the now opposition to set up special trusts. It was not a bad idea, but the problem was that it was executed poorly. Only 22 families in Australia have been able to access the special trust opportunities to secure people’s futures. It was a good idea that was poorly executed, and it will be up to Labor to fix it. We welcome the suggestions of the opposition on how to improve it.

Why was it that, if you worked in what was once known as a sheltered workshop, now known as a business employment service, that the previous government paid you $25 less in mobility allowance? That taxi you get to that work site is no cheaper than the taxi you get when you go to open employment. Why is it that, under the current arrangements, if you are on the disability support pension, as you would have been under the previous government, and you wanted to do work experience, then you had to lose your pension? The opposition, when they were in government, created a culture of fear, so when we hear a debate today about standing up for the carers of people with disabilities, I want to understand where the now opposition was collectively, as opposed to the individual efforts of some in the opposition, on the rights of the disabled.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was the work and support bill, and you know it.

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

The member for Flinders realises that the point I am making cannot be debated, because he understands that Australians, by virtue of having a physical impairment, an intellectual disability or a mental illness, have fewer chances of getting a job, of owning a house, of getting an education, of getting access to buildings and of receiving equal treatment. Please spare us the hypocrisy of the debate about the one-off bonuses, when the Prime Minister has made it perfectly clear what will happen.

Peter Martin, the economics editor of the Canberra Times, says it more eloquently in his article today than I suspect I can. It is worth reading into the record what he said today. He said:

Carers themselves, while grateful for the Coalition’s last-minute budget-balancing exercises, were never happy about the way in which they were being treated. The head of Carers ACT, Dee McGrath, told The Canberra Times last week that “the problem with the bonus payments was they were nonrecurrent and this was setting up false expectations and that is always a very dangerous thing.”

He goes on:

It is the Coalition that should be condemned for the way in which it treated carers, not the Rudd Government. Had it recompensed them properly, it would have cost it a lot more ... it would have been a permanent part of the budget ...

The Prime Minister and the minister for family and community services made it clear—(Time expired)

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I trust the parliamentary secretary opposite will go and give a lecture to his leader, because the Prime Minister’s performance here in the debate on the censure motion this afternoon was an absolute disgrace. He showed absolutely no care or compassion at all. The question was put to him: would he rise to the dispatch box today and say to those carers and the people they care for that their apprehension and their feeling of uncertainty as to whether or not they will be able to cope could be laid to rest. All the Prime Minister had to do was to come to the dispatch box and say that the lump sum payment would continue. That was all he had to do.

I turn to this fascinating use of weasel words. First of all the Prime Minister said, ‘We won’t leave these people in the lurch.’ Really? What does that mean? Secondly, ‘They won’t be one cent disadvantaged.’ Really? That can only be delivered if that lump sum payment is made, because many of the people who receive that bonus payment, which is a tax-free bonus payment will be subject to taxation if it is rolled into a pension-type payment. Every individual circumstance will be different. There is no way in the world that you can make a collectivist guarantee that each individual will not be one cent worse off. The only way that that can be done is to continue the tax-free lump sum payment. The Prime Minister had it within his capability to do that today.

As the shadow minister for veterans’ affairs, let me tell you about the plight of one war widow who receives the carers payment. She is 80. She looks after her mother, who is 105. She keeps her mother out of an institution, out of an aged-care home, by managing the best way she can. At Christmas her refrigerator broke down, so she had to go out and find someone who would give her 12-month terms to pay it off. The mother, who is 105, has a pet. The pet is important to her. The bonus payment would assist with the cost of an operation that that pet requires.

The bonus payment is used for all sorts of things that enable people to have a payment ready and gives them an advantage that they might otherwise be denied. An example is the wives of people who are TPIs. The wives are not in receipt of gold card coverage because they are looking after their husbands who are still covered by the gold card; however, they can put the one-off payment they receive—because they are in receipt of either the carer payment or carer allowance—towards their own private health insurance. People can make individual decisions about how it can best suit them. The lump sum is what comes through as being important. It is preferable to have it as a lump sum rather than dribbled out over several payments—rolled into a pension-like payment. They can then make a payment which is meaningful for them. It has been factored into their way of life.

The Prime Minister, when he wanted to be elected, said, ‘We will be economic conservatives.’ Every time we made a statement, he said, ‘me too’. The much-vaunted utility allowance, which was talked about today, was our policy. A ‘me too’ meant that the legislation was introduced. This lump sum payment was also a ‘me too’ policy. The Prime Minister said, ‘me too.’ With regard to veterans, we have 33,000 TPIs—totally and permanently disabled people. About one-half of those people will be affected by this policy to get rid of the lump sum payment. When it comes to extremely disabled people, again a large number of people will be affected. When I listened to the Assistant Treasurer try to make an equation between an able-bodied working person and a carer of someone who is totally disabled, I found that comparison obscene in the extreme. In the speech by the parliamentary secretary, he started to ask for compassion. He needs to give that lecture to his own leadership. He certainly needs to instil it in the Assistant Treasurer. These people cannot go on until May with this indecision. (Time expired)

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to address what I see as cynicism from the other side of the House. There has been some discussion of the hypocrisy—I think that has been well covered and proven—but I want to comment on the cynicism and what has been happening over the last couple of weeks. This story about bonus payments broke in the media towards the end of last week, and the opposition immediately jumped on it, saying: ‘We’re going to whack the government around the ears for taking $1,600 off people. It is outrageous. How could those people possibly survive, having lost that money?’ When the Prime Minister made it clear that, despite the debate about the nature of the payment within the budget process, he would guarantee that carers and pensioners would not be $1 worse off, what did the opposition do? They panicked: ‘How do we keep this rolling as a political issue? How do we continue to get some political mileage out of this? I know; we’ll make it about the fact that it is a lump sum payment. We’ll say that they can’t do without a lump sum payment. They are not capable of handling any other sort of payment. It has to be a lump sum payment.’ That is what today is about. Today is about a last-ditch political attempt to try to drag out an argument that gives the opposition something to say in this House.

The reality is that, if this one-off lump sum payment is so vitally important—so absolutely critical—to the wellbeing of carers, what did the opposition in government do about it for four years? When they brought it in the first time, one would assume that carers said: ‘Thank you. Finally, a lump sum payment. That is what we’ve always needed,’ and the previous government would have said: ‘That was a great idea. Obviously, it is important to these people. We’ll make it a permanent payment.’ Did they do that in the first year? No. Did they do it in the second year? No. What about the third year or the fourth year? No. Did they ever make it an election promise? If it is so critically important and they were so profoundly concerned about carers, did they make it an election promise? No. Now the opposition have come in here and are trying to tell us that our commitment that carers will not be one dollar worse off is not good enough. Why is it not good enough? Because it does not suit the opposition’s political advantage. That is the only reason: because the commitment that carers have been given is that they will not be one dollar worse off.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have you talked to any carers?

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The shadow minister at the table may like to know that I actually have a sister-in-law who is a carer—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have you asked her?

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and I have spoken to her.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And what did she say?

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Her comment, if you would like to know, is that she would rather have a regular payment than a one-off payment. I am sure there are others who would prefer it the other way. The argument we are having is about the financial wellbeing of carers. Do not get personal by taking cheap shots about whether people personally know about people with disabilities.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry; it is relevant.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not relevant, because you are making a presumption about me that is inaccurate; and you do not want to go down that track because it would be very unfair. Let me also tell you about my experience as a member of the IR task force when we were in opposition. If you want to talk about caring about carers, let’s talk about the woman who appeared before the IR task force who was a secretary in a medical practice. She had always worked 15 hours a week. Why did she work only 15 hours a week? She was a grandmother of a profoundly disabled child and she could only do those hours because she relieved her daughter one day a week to give her daughter some respite from looking after her child. What happened to her? She was offered an AWA. She was offered an AWA that would not give her a guarantee of hours. She had to be available at any time during the five days of the working week to do the 15 hours. So she could no longer give her daughter a guarantee that she could provide her with respite for one day a week. Let’s talk about the reality of understanding the lives of carers and their families and what sort of certainty they need in their lives in order to be able to meet their commitments. The Work Choices legislation—in this woman’s very direct, personal experience—ripped that from underneath her. Because she would not sign that AWA—because she would not say to her daughter, ‘I can’t help you out’—she ended up losing her job. So do not lecture us on the understanding of the dilemmas facing carers and their families in our communities. The reality is: this is simply a desperate attempt by the opposition to drag the last political gasp out of this so that they have something to talk about in this House. The reality for carers is that they have been given a commitment by the Prime Minister that they will not be $1 worse off. At the end of the day, an ongoing, guaranteed income is going to be far more important to carers and families than the one-off payments. (Time expired)

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

I would like to be the voice of the carers in my electorate just for this moment and not actually throw bombs across the chamber. I would like to say to the Prime Minister, from Jenny, Tony, Mark, Katie, Toby, Jodie and many other people in my electorate: please understand the issues that carers are facing at this point in time and listen to their concerns. Please understand that not everybody qualifies for a utilities allowance. Please know that the lump sum, as paid by the former government, can be multiplied depending on the number of people in care. So, if you have—as Jenny and Tony have—two profoundly autistic children, you get $1,200 as a carer’s bonus, not a $600 one-off payment. These are the issues that are facing and concerning the people in my electorate.

A utilities allowance, as has been noted by many of the people across my electorate, is a payment that is generally not commensurate with the numbers in care; and we do have numbers in care. We certainly have Robert and his mother. Robert’s mother cares for two people in her family who have severe intellectual and physical disabilities. Robert has said: ‘My mother and I both voted for the Rudd government in the hope that things would get better in our community. We now feel very uneasy and unsure as to what the future holds with the Rudd government.’ This is not about politics. This is the concern of the people. Hear, understand and respond to the issues that the member for Mac-kellar has raised. It becomes taxable if you make it part of the payment, so the benefit of that payment is eroded away. A one-off bonus each year is not eroded away. A one-off bonus each year, announced with the budget, has common-sense proportions that do not allow these moneys to be eroded away.

The opposition have clearly articulated the concerns of carers. In response, we hear from the government that it was not in the forward est-imates. How many times did we sit in the gov-ernment benches and hear the opposition carp on about the dental program that the Howard government cut out in 1996 when they came into being? They cut the dental pro-gram. And again it is not do as I do; it is do as I say. It is one rule for one and one rule for the other. Now that the former opposition are in government they are saying, ‘Oh, it must be in the forward estimates.’ We remem-ber that that dental program was not in the forward estimates either. It was a one-off pro--gram. How many hours did we spend listen--ing to those from the other side of the House commenting ad nauseam whilst we were in government? What happens in the for-ward estimates is now all so very important. I appeal to the Prime Minister and to the min-ister on behalf of carers not only in the River-ina but in all electorates—Labor, Liberal and National—right across the spectrum and right across Australia. They are right to have concerns and they are right if the reports that are coming out, saying that it would be in a utilities allowance, are true. Even though the Prime Minister may think that the carers will not be one cent worse off, please look at this carefully; please understand the concerns of the carers and please res-pond appropriately. This is not a political issue. This is not just political bun fighting by an opposition with a government across the chamber. These are the lives and the concerns of real people who matter. These are the concerns that the carers are raising with us and, if the truth be known, they will also be raising them with members of the govern-ment. We sincerely ask that the Prime Minister ensures that he looks at this carefully so as not to disadvantage any further those carers who do a magnificent job on behalf of the people of Australia. If we were to put just 10 per cent of our people with disabilities into care, we would not be able to manage the bud-get that is responsible for caring for them. So, rather than be playing time across the chamber, I just appeal for common sense to be had.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The discussion is now concluded.