Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Will the minister update the House on how the government is providing extra support to families through the government’s Economic Security Strategy and on any responses?

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

I thank the member for Isaacs for his question. As he knows, last week there was good news for many, many Australian families. Those families will get a big helping hand as part of the government’s $10.4 billion Economic Security Strategy. Those families who receive family tax benefit part A will receive $1,000 for each eligible child in their care. In Isaacs, that will mean 10,800 families will receive $1,000 for every single eligible child in their care. Three-quarters of all Australian families with dependent children will receive the payment, totalling $3.9 billion.

It is certainly the case that families around Australia have been welcoming the payment. In the Australian last week there was news of one Sydney mother, Jenny McNamara, who was planning to spend her lump sum payment. According to the article, she said:

“I’11 spend it on everyday needs—things like clothes, food and maybe some presents,” … With her husband Andrew earning $52,000 as a courier driver, and monthly mortgage payments of $1300, the couple rely on annual Centrelink family benefit payments of $6000 to make ends meet.

Certainly for that family Christmas is going to be that much easier. There will be four million Australian children for whom Christmas is now going to be that much brighter.

I was asked about other responses, and I have to say that the response from the other side of the House is just a little bit difficult to pin down. The opposition leader is certainly trying to walk both sides of the street on this issue. Last week, on the day that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer announced the Economic Security Strategy, the Leader of the Opposition held a press conference within hours of the Prime Minister’s announcement. He was trying to demonstrate at that point last week that he was supporting it. He said:

We’re not going to argue about the composition of the package or quibble about it. It has our support. It will provide a stimulus to the economy …

But it did not take very long for this Leader of the Opposition to show his base political opportunism.

Yesterday, on the Insiders program, the opposition leader was so out of touch that he was saying that the government was hyping up the financial crisis that has rocked the world, saying that we have somehow hyped it up. He had this to say about the government’s Economic Security Strategy:

The second part of this $10.4-billion package basically involves giving $1000 for every child whose family are in receipt of family tax benefit A.

Well, that bit was right. Then he went on to say:

Now this has had a lot of consequences that people are writing in to me and other politicians, complaining about.

‘A lot of consequences’. What? Like consequences that families are able to buy things that they need for their children; consequences like families are now able to buy decent presents for their children? This morning on 2GB he was at it again, working away, now trying to undermine the government’s Economic Security Strategy. I quote him again:

Look at the other side, the other half of it. They say: why wasn’t there a general tax cut that would have benefited them?

So it is hard to say: is he in favour of the $1,000 per child for these families? Is he in favour of it or not? Or does he want a tax cut on top of the thousand dollars? Maybe he does, maybe he does not. Who would know? I do not think even he does. Unlike the opposition, the government is very clear: we want to give this extra support to families. We intend to pay it in December. We know these families need extra help and we know that, as a result of paying this extra help to families, it will benefit the Australian economy.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his $10.4 billion economic package. Prime Minister, under this package, why should a family with three children earning $160,000 a year receive the same $3,000 bonus as a family with three children earning just $42,000 a year?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition, walking both sides of the street, know no limit. Last week, in an exercise in small ‘b’ bipartisanship, they supported the package. Ever since then what we have had is the housing spokesman over there, the Leader of the National Party in the Senate and various others, including the honourable member who has just asked the question, trying to unpick it, undermine it, in an attempt to walk both sides of the street. Of course, the ultimate bottom line here is the government’s determination to provide support to those families who need assistance out there right now. There is a limit on what the budget can do. What we have done is taken an age-old definition, and that is use the family tax benefit A definition, as the best means of providing that support. It provides 75 per cent of families with this $1,000 one-off payment for each child, just as we have taken action to provide support to pensioners, carers, those on the disability support pension, those who are widows and those who are in receipt of veterans’ entitlements.

Going to the actual core of this, in terms of walking both sides of the street, the statement by the Liberal Party leader that the government is hyping the global financial crisis means that he does not understand how serious the global financial crisis is and its impact on families, pensioners, carers and those on superannuation payments. Therefore, if the Leader of the Liberal Party is out there saying that the global financial crisis is being hyped, it demonstrates that he does not understand how serious this crisis is and its implications for such basic things as the 10 million Australians on superannuation payments, which he seems to regard as a trivial matter. We do not regard these things as trivial matters. We will support Australian families and the Australian economy.