Damian Hale (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to make my contribution to the second reading debate on the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008. This bill will provide the legislation for certain further budget and other measures affecting the portfolios of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, and Veterans’ Affairs—namely, to pay the maternity immunisation allowance in two instalments and extend the program’s eligibility to ensure equity. The bill will also cease the partner service pension to married partners who are separated but not divorced. Additionally, the bill makes minor and technical amendments to the child support legislation.

These amendments, particularly the maternity immunisation allowance, are extremely important to me because, just like all dads, I am extremely passionate about the health of my kids. I have been lucky enough to be blessed with five healthy children. The health of my kids is not something I take for granted. In fact, every day I think about how lucky I am. I remember that when each of them was a baby I took on board my own involvement in making sure that they did get to the doctor and have their immunisations. Very often the child is not very happy with you after that, so there were always some chocolates and ice-cream or things like that to deaden the pain of the needle. I must admit I used to look away when they put the needle in but I knew that it was for the right cause.

Having doorknocked extensively around my electorate in both Darwin and Palmerston, I know that kids’ health is a passion issue with all families. I think that is true right across the board, right across Australia. It does not matter what side of politics you are on; there are certainly a few not-negotiable issues. One of those issues is the health and safety of our kids. Children’s health and wellbeing is at the forefront of the government’s commitment to the Australian people. That is why the Prime Minister, in his speech setting out our nation’s sights for the future at the Sydney Institute annual dinner this year, proposed affordable parent and child centres for all zero- to five-year-old Australian children—parent and child centres that will provide maternal and child health services such as baby health checks, baby weighing, feeding advice and vaccinations.

We are taking action. Practical examples of our government investing in our children were introduced on 1 July this year when two brand-new initiatives were launched. The Get Set 4 Life, habits for healthy kids guide was the first one. This initiative is a practical user-friendly guide that helps parents help their kids develop healthy habits for life. Also available for parents and carers is the second new initiative: the Healthy Kids Check. Under the Healthy Kids Check, each child starting school will now have access to a free basic health check through Medicare. I know that this initiative has been welcomed in my electorate of Solomon. We have a growing population, particularly in the city of Palmerston, where more than 500 babies were born last year. The checks are to make sure that kids are happy, healthy and ready to learn when they start school. The Healthy Kids Check will be available for all four-year-olds at the request of the parents or carer. This check corresponds with the time of their four-year-olds’ immunisations. Delivered by GPs or practising nurses, it will help make sure kids are on track in their health and wellbeing. I know that those formative years—minus nine months to five years—are very important in the development of children, both in education and health.

These initiatives show that we as a government are serious about the future of our nation, and the future of our nation is in having healthy kids. I know that those opposite will fully support these types of initiatives because this is bipartisan. There are no political barriers between the two major parties on this issue. The budget measure on the maternity immunisation allowance will restructure the allowance. The restructure will improve the program’s effectiveness, not diminish it. It needs to be restructured so that it is more in line with the National Immunisation Program. The maternity immunisation allowance was introduced as a single payment 11 years ago. The allowance is currently paid for children aged between 18 months and two years if they are immunised to the recommended level, or if parents have a formal exemption. This initiative was designed to act as a strong incentive and reminder to parents to immunise their children on time. It is a commendable initiative. However, the program does not provide the same strong incentives for parents when their kids turn four years old and need the booster. In fact, statistics tell us that immunisation rates for Aussie kids are higher when they are aged two than when they start school. This is a problem. Ninety-three per cent of children aged two are fully immunised. This drops to only 88 per cent of kids being fully immunised at the age of six. By bringing this legislation in, the government will certainly be providing an incentive for parents to follow up with their boosters.

As we get busier and more kids arrive—in my case, they kept arriving at a regular interval for a while; I had five under 10 at one stage, but they are all growing well now and they were all immunised as they went through—sometimes we might forget and not follow up with those boosters. So the amendments in this bill will really give people an incentive to make sure that they follow up with boosters for their children.

The proposed changes will increase the incentives, as I have said, to give four-year-olds the recommended booster before they start school. This should result in many Australian children having better overall levels of immunisation. The types of vaccinations that are recommended in the National Immunisation Program currently include measles, mumps, german measles, polio, diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough—all serious illnesses that no parent would ever want their children to get.

The good people of Solomon have just had a reminder of the dangers associated with whooping cough. Earlier this year in the Northern Territory we had 12 children diagnosed with whooping cough, and 11 of them had to be hospitalised. The NT government’s Director of the Centre for Disease Control, Dr Vicki Krause, urged parents across the NT to ensure that both they and their children were vaccinated against it. She said:

Infants are the most vulnerable to the complications of whooping cough and it can lead to pneumonia and sometimes death in young babies.

About one in 200 children under the age of six months who develop whooping cough die from pneumonia or brain damage. It is definitely a case where prevention is far better than cure.

This bill proposes that from 2009 the maternity immunisation allowance be divided equally into two payments. The first payment will be paid when the child is aged between 18 months and two years and the second payment will be paid when the child is aged between four years and five years. To ensure no-one is worse off, both instalments will be indexed twice yearly.

Another very important aspect to the bill goes to who is eligible to receive the maternity immunisation allowance. Currently the payable allowance does not accommodate older children adopted from outside Australia. That is hardly fair. That is why in 2005 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services Inquiry into Overseas Adoption in Australia recommended:

The Minister for Family and Community Services amend the eligibility criteria for the maternity immunisation allowance in the case of children adopted from overseas so the eligibility period is two years after the child’s entry to Australia.

This bill will accommodate the recommendation from the committee and ensure that parents of all children in Australia, irrespective of whether they were born in Australia or are newly arrived through adoption, will be able to obtain the allowance. These changes reinforce the fundamental purposes of the payment, which is to get as many people immunised as possible.

The second part of this bill relates to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. The amendment will cease the partner service pension to married partners who are separated but not divorced from their veteran spouse and who have not reached pension age. Under this measure, eligibility for partner service pension will cease 12 months after separation or if the veteran enters into a marriage-like relationship. It should be noted that a spouse who is a member of an illness-separated couple remains the partner of a veteran and therefore does not lose eligibility for partner service pension. A couple who are illness-separated must be unable to live together in the home because of the illness or infirmity of either or both of them. Obviously, certain assessment criteria must be met to ensure eligibility to receive the pension in this situation. The amendments will also set the eligible age at 50 years for the partner service pension for the partner of a veteran who is in receipt of the equivalent of or less than special rate but above general rate disability pension or who has at least 80 impairment points under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.

Aspects of this bill also relate to child support. On 1 July this year much-needed new reforms to the child support formula commenced. As a result of their introduction anomalies need to be addressed and minor and technical amendments are required. For instance, this bill ensures the Child Support Agency, CSA, can prevent parents with a child support debt from leaving the country without paying or at least ensuring payment arrangements for the debt are made. This is done through departure prohibition orders, or DPOs. The recent amendments which moved the DPO provisions from regulations into primary legislation unintentionally removed the ability for the CSA to issue a DPO for certain registrable overseas maintenance liabilities. The proposed amendments now ensure that the Child Support Agency can apply the same departure prohibition orders to international parents in Australia as it would apply for domestic parents.

Another anomaly that has been identified relates to Child Support Agency decisions about care. The amendments to the legislation will ensure that, in all situations where parents agree on the level of care for a child, that level of care will be reflected accurately in the assessment.

This budget is delivering for the people of Solomon. This budget is good for families and for children in my electorate of Solomon. I encourage those opposite to support the amendments introduced in this bill because they are important amendments aimed at making sure that children are immunised and that they receive their boosters. A healthy society is something that Australia should be striving towards. I commend this bill to the House.

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

The Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2008 Budget and Other measures) Bill 2008 introduces several amendments affecting the portfolio of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and the Veterans’ Affairs portfolio. I note the opposition’s support for the maternity immunisation allowance and child support measures and some of the veterans’ affairs measures.

The first set of amendments relates to the maternity immunisation allowance, a payment designed to encourage families to immunise their young children to protect against disease. Currently, the maternity immunisation allowance is paid in one lump sum when a child receives their 18-month immunisation. However, immunisation trends in Australia show that the overall immunisation level of Australian children actually decreases between the cohorts of children aged under two years and those aged between four and six years of age. The amendments in this bill will restructure the maternity immunisation allowance and align it more closely to the National Immunisation Program to encourage higher rates of immunisation among children before they start school. This will particularly help the booster rates for diptheria, tetanus, whooping cough, measles, mumps, german measles and polio immunisations.

Under these changes, the allowance will be paid in two payments, as children meet the 18-month and four-year-old immunisation requirements. The first payment will be made when the child is aged between 18 months and two years. The second payment will be paid when the child is aged between four years and five years. The new arrangements will apply from 1 January 2009. The government believes that this measure will help strengthen immunisation levels of Australian children.

The bill will also extend eligibility for the maternity immunisation allowance to children adopted from outside Australia who enter Australia before turning 16. Older adopted children will need to be immunised between 18 months and two years after their arrival. Older children adopted from overseas currently are not well served by the existing arrangements, and therefore the public policy purpose of the payment, to encourage the immunisation of children, is undermined. These changes will help encourage the overall rates of childhood immunisation in Australia. And, importantly, this measure finally implements one of the recommendations of the 2005 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services inquiry into overseas adoption in Australia.

In relation to the Veterans’ Affairs portfolio, the changes in this bill will cease eligibility for the partner service pension for the spouse of a veteran who has been separated from the veteran for 12 months or more. Eligibility will also cease if the veteran enters a marriage-like relationship with another person. This measure does not affect partners who are over the age pension age, unless the partner were to enter into a marriage-like relationship or proceed with divorce, which is current policy. Currently, the partner service pension can be paid indefinitely to a separated but still married partner provided they do not enter into a marriage-like relationship with another person. This is different to the non-married de facto partners, who lose their pension immediately after they separate from the veteran.

For a partner who has been separated from a veteran for more than 12 months, other than for reasons of illness separation, it is hard to accept that a marriage-like relationship still exists. On this basis, it is difficult to continue to provide the partner service pension. Allowing a spouse to continue to receive the partner service pension for up to 12 months after separating from a veteran gives a separated spouse time to consider options, such as increased workforce participation or alternative income support. This measure will not apply to a spouse who is separated from a veteran because of illness. A spouse who is a member of an illness-separated couple remains the partner of a veteran and therefore does not lose eligibility for the partner service pension.

The last set of amendments in the bill relates to child support; notably amendments that address some minor anomalies in relation to the child support formula reforms that commenced on 1 July 2008. These are relatively minor, uncontroversial and, indeed, supported by the opposition.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. All those of that opinion say aye, the contrary no.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the—

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The noes have it.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The ayes have it? Do the ayes have it or do the noes?

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

The ayes have it.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do the ayes have it?

Louise Markus (Greenway, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The noes have it.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The noes have it.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is a division required?

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: you called for the ayes and the noes and you indicated that the ayes had it.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I did not say that the ayes had it.

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

Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I had not finished my point of order. As I understood, you called for the vote, you acknowledged that the ayes had it, and there was some—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

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

I do not know whether there was some confusion, but you were looking for some sort of guide from the opposition. You asked three or four times, and we indicated that the ayes had it. Why would we need to have a division on this?

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The parliamentary secretary raises a point of order. The noes had it, and I was waiting to see whether there were two voices before I called ayes or noes. A division is required. Ring the bells.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mrs Markus’s amendment) stand part of the question.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, can the Hansard note that there is a stranger in the House, Ryan Karlovic, and even though he is most welcome in the House his vote should not be counted on this occasion!

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for North Sydney for bringing that to my attention.

Government Member:

We don’t need his vote, but if we did we’d use it!

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.