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

I would like to indicate to the House that the government proposes that amendments (1), (2), (3), (6) and (7) be agreed to, and that amendments (4) and (5) be disagreed to. I suggest, therefore, that it might suit the House first to consider amendments (1), (2), (3), (6) and (7) and when those amendments have been disposed of to consider amendments (4) and (5). I move:

That Senate amendments (1), (2), (3), (6) and (7) be agreed to.

I will very briefly indicate to the House the issues to which these amendments refer. Amendments (1), (2), (6) and (7) relate to the changes to the treatment of fringe benefits tax. I made comment to the House earlier today about these government amendments and I do not propose to take the time of the House to go over the same ground again. We support these amendments to retain the use of net fringe benefits tax for the income definitions in family assistance law.

The government will support amendment (3) moved by the opposition in the Senate. I understand the opposition wants a review of these measures in two years time, and we will not stand in the way of that occurring.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will very briefly indicate that the opposition in this chamber obviously supports the amendments that went through this House earlier today and have now come back to us. The amendments which the opposition made to the original bill, we think, are very significant in terms of policy but, in order to expedite the business of the House and of the Senate, we will not be insisting on them here, nor will we be insisting on them in the Senate.

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

So you don’t want (4) and (5) either?

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am glad that the minister has indicated that one of our amendments is acceptable to the government. Those that are unacceptable to the government will not be insisted upon, in order to expedite the passage of the legislation.

The government’s original bill was almost thoroughly objectionable in the sense that everything in the government’s original bill took something away from someone, none of the take-aways in the original bill had been flagged by the government prior to the election and there was nothing in the fiscal position that the government discovered after the election that would have justified breach of implicit and, in the case of the baby bonus, explicit commitments. I see no reason why the means testing that the original bill imposes should not have been shared with the general public before the election if that is the position of the government.

Nevertheless, there is one aspect of the bill now before the House—that is, the last-minute amendment which we dealt with earlier today here—which does confer a benefit, and that is the amendment that the minister has alluded to which restores the situation which would have been taken away from charity workers and others on 1 July as an unintended consequence of 2006 legislation, which the then opposition supported. Plainly, the opposition does support the government’s amendment. And, because this amendment will not pass if the opposition insists on those amendments which the government objects to, and because it is important that these charity workers in particular be protected from the unintended consequences of earlier legislation, we certainly do not intend to further delay the passage of the legislation now before the House. As I said, we will not be insisting upon our earlier amendments when it goes back to the Senate tomorrow.

Question agreed to.

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

I move:

That Senate amendments (4) and (5) be disagreed to.

Given that the opposition has now indicated that they will not be insisting on these amendments, we obviously will now be able to see this legislation go through the parliament in the next day—we hope, given that we do not necessarily know what will go on in the Senate in terms of timing.

I want to highlight a number of things. One is that it is critical that this legislation go through the Senate before the Senate rises for the winter break so that we can make sure that those people who are working for not-for-profit organisations do not face cuts to their family assistance and childcare benefits of up to $100 a fortnight. It has been absolutely critical to get the agreement we now have.

It is also important that the opposition has recognised that the other parts of the legislation that we are debating tonight are critical and go to the integrity of two things. First, they go to the integrity of the social security system. That is why we are introducing these changes, which will introduce a compliance regime for the Commonwealth seniors health card. The compliance regime that we are introducing for the Commonwealth seniors health card is in fact exactly the same compliance regime that exists for the age pension, the carer payment and the service pension—and my colleague the Minster for Veterans’ Affairs is here with me now. I am pleased that the opposition recognises that the purpose of the amendment that we are making, which will introduce a compliance regime for the Commonwealth seniors health card, is to protect the integrity of the social security system.

The other reason that these amendments are critical to the government is that we do not want to see the integrity of our budget challenged in any way. We have put forward a very significant budget surplus. Delivering this budget surplus is one way in which we have addressed this issue of inflation pressure on families and older Australians, who are really doing it tough. That is why it is critical that the budget measures contained in this bill go through the parliament as quickly as possible. I appreciate the opposition’s support.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very briefly—because I do not want to further delay the House—I need to make it very clear that the opposition is all in support of integrity in our social security system. The problem, as far as the opposition is concerned, with the measure in the original legislation in respect of the Commonwealth seniors health card was that it is a precursor to changes flagged in the budget which the opposition does not like and which it thinks that the government should have flagged pre-election. It is all very well for the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs to say that there is integrity in the budget. I would not expect her to say anything other than that. But if there were real integrity in government then the government would have said before the election, not afterwards, that there were going to be means tests on the baby bonus and family tax benefit part B. Having expressed those very important reservations and caveats, I am prepared to see this legislation go through the House now.

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

I am going to make a couple of comments with respect to the partner service pension issue, after following the debate in the Senate. This is to do with amendment (5). There are four main points that I would like to focus on. The first point that I would like to talk to is the question of consultation. It has been argued in the other place and also here by the opposition that this matter was not publicised. Here is a copy, firstly, of a press release which was released at the time of the budget and which clearly outlined these measures. I also have with me a copy of the latest edition of Vetaffairs, which on page 4 details the circumstances with respect to these particular changes. On the night of the budget, I briefed a number of ex-service organisation representatives in my office in person and also held a teleconference with a number of others to explain to them what we were doing. The next day, deputy commissioners of the department in each state capital briefed ex-service organisation representatives at the local level about what changes were made. So I reject and refute the claim that this was not publicised. It was well publicised.

On the question of the details of the impact, there are a couple of points that I would like to make. There is an argument that the financial position of someone on a partner service pension is such that it is particularly tough for them. In fact, I have to say to you that someone who is retiring on the service pension when that is all they have got is in a situation in which things are pretty tough—there is no doubt about that. I am not for one minute suggesting that it is easy. However, if you are not on the maximum partner service pension you do have income from other sources, and they have to be relatively significant to have any impact on decreasing your partner service pension in the first place.

I can inform the House that some data from the department in relation to the last 12 months shows that there were some 464 grants of the partner service pension for the period 17 May 2007 to 17 May 2008 for those who were not TPIs and who were not in a situation in which they had dependent children. Some 464 applications were received and accepted that would in fact be impacted upon by this particular change. I can inform the House that some 318 of those were in receipt of less than the maximum of the partner service pension. Only 146 were receiving the maximum rate. Some 318—more than two-thirds—were in a situation in which they had other sources of income. I am not for one minute suggesting that that means that their lives are easy, but it does indicate that their financial circumstances are somewhat better than those of someone solely on the service pension or the partner service pension.

Another point the government have made clear is that we are very conscious that the degree of disability an individual may have is something that relates to the circumstances of the partner, and that the carer’s role of a partner in these circumstances is very important. That is why we excluded partners of TPIs on the basis that a TPI is commonly understood to be a severely disabled veteran who is unable to work.

I also inform the House that, of the 464 applications received in the last year, 232 applicants were in receipt of absolutely no disability pension at all. Members would be aware that there are differing rates which use a 10 per cent gradient up to 100 per cent of disability pension, with respect to veterans affairs, and then there are above general rate pensions for TPIs and several other smaller categories. These 232 applicants were in receipt of absolutely no disability rate pension. In fact only 90 of those 464 were in receipt of 70 per cent or more of a disability rate pension. This would suggest that, overwhelmingly, the people affected here are not in a situation where they are required to be in a carer’s role, and I think that is very important to note.

Another argument put by the opposition was that when they made changes with respect to the age pension it was on a graduated basis. It has been said by others that this was not a retirement payment so there was a reason for that. Also, the graduation has occurred on the basis of the actual age of those who are applying. To use the 70 per cent rate of pension and above as an example, last year seven people aged 50 applied, three people aged 51 applied, seven people aged 52 applied, six people aged 53 applied and seven people aged 54 applied—and on it goes. This clearly indicates this is not a benefit that has been picked up at an early age by very many people because of their circumstances. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

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

I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to Senate amendments (4) and (5) and I move:

That the reasons be adopted.

Question agreed to.