Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That, on Thursday, 10 May 2012:

(a) the routine of business from not later than 12.30 pm to 1.50 pm shall be consideration of the government business order of the day relating to the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill 2012;

(b) the bill listed in paragraph (a) be considered under a limitation of time, and that the time allotted for all remaining stages be as follows:

commencing at 12.30 pm until 1.50 pm; and

(c) paragraph (b) of this order operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142.

I acknowledge that this motion is unusual on the second day of this sitting, but the reason for the hasty passage of the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill 2012 is threefold. Passage is essential in the first week of sittings so that the Department of Human Services can deliver the lump sum payments for the 2011-12 Education Tax Refund year to 1.3 million families this financial year. What the opposition does not highlight is the consequence of us not proceeding with this measure, because we know that one million families will continue to miss out if we continue with the status quo of the arrangements that have previously been in place. Passage is also necessary so that the Australian Taxation Office can make the necessary changes to the tax materials for 2011-12. These materials need to be finalised by 15 May so that any changes to the Education Tax Refund for this year must be settled by then. Finally, the motion is necessary because the opposition will block debate on this bill, as we know from their behaviour to date, unless the motion is in place.

The opposition, strangely, is trying to prevent a payment to families in June, by delaying this bill. These families would have been eligible for the payment through the tax system. Instead the payment will be made directly to families to ensure that it is received and received in a timely manner. Soon I will come to the opposition's lengthy history in similar matters.

The payment will assist families to meet the cost of educating their children. The opposition has raised spurious arguments about cash splashes, and they are even claiming that parents will spend the allowance on discretionary items. It is outrageous. They are strange times when the Liberal Party is claiming that people are not in the best position to determine how they will spend their money. How offensive it is to the parents of school children to suggest that they are not spending the money on their children's education. Let me be clear: the allowance will provide assistance directly to those who need it most. It ensures that a payment is received by those who are entitled to it and that they receive it in a timely way so that parents can spend the money as they need it, not 12 months later. Having money to spend when it is needed rather than as a tax refund many months later follows the same principle that applied previously for the payment of the childcare allowance. This government rectified that problem.

I recall, when the Howard government introduced the childcare tax rebate, that they did an even more extreme measure. They suggested that families apply for it in the tax year after the tax year of their expenditure. That was one of the measures we rectified almost immediately after—actually, no, that was one issue that we forced to be rectified from opposition! More recently, we have ensured that families can receive those payments in relation to childcare support in the same circumstances as when they are spending it. And it is strange: you do not hear from this opposition arguments that families will not spend that money on their childcare costs, or arguments that families do not spend their family tax benefit, and indeed the improvements proposed in this budget that the opposition has indicated it will support, on discretionary items. But, for some very strange reason, education costs are something that this opposition thinks families cannot be trusted with. So we have more surprises in that the opposition can readily agree to the principle in the case of childcare and family tax benefit but apparently not with respect to education expenditure. So where is the sham that was suggested in the previous motions? I suggest that the sham lies with the other side, with the inconsistencies and the strange tactical positioning over the last couple of days to prevent, as I said, one million families from being paid their full entitlement in a timely fashion.

The other point that was made in the previous motions was the suggestion that the Senate would not have adequate opportunity to consider these measures. I should highlight at this stage that briefings were offered and did in fact occur with the shadow minister, Kevin Andrews. All questions have been responded to, and in fact Senator Fifield was offered the same from me yesterday. So for this opposition to suggest that we are not facilitating a timely consideration of these measures is laughable.

Let us go to the detail of these measures. The bill introduces a new payment through the family assistance legislation called the 'schoolkids bonus', to begin on 1 January 2013. The payment will provide direct assistance to eligible families with children in school and will be paid through the family payments system twice a year, in January and July. The two payments will total $410 per year for each child in primary school and $820 per year for each child in secondary school. The schoolkids bonus will replace the education tax refund. There is no charade here. We have been quite clear that that is the case, the history of which I will come to in a moment.

Consequently, this bill removes the education tax refund from the taxation legislation. As part of the transitional arrangements to the new schoolkids bonus the bill also creates a new payment in the family assistance and veterans affairs legislation to pay the maximum value of the education tax refund entitlement for the 2011-12 year as a lump sum. This lump sum payment will be delivered to eligible families before the end of June 2012. The bill will have a positive impact on families, delivering assistance to help families with the costs of having kids in schools. Paying the new schoolkids bonus twice a year means that families will have upfront support to help meet educational expenses rather than receiving a payment, if indeed they have claimed it, months after the education expenses are incurred. Paying out the 2011-12 education tax refund in full to all eligible families in June also means families do not have to keep receipts or make a claim for a refund at the end of the current financial year. Who in this chamber can argue that any family with a school-aged child is not expending the amounts involved here? It would be laughable for the opposition to suggest that any family with a child in any school is not incurring educational costs within the scope of the level of this allowance.

These changes mean that one million families will receive more money than they did under the education tax refund last year. As we know, and indeed as the general public knows—it is not being hidden; the opposition knows; anyone who reads contemporary newspapers knows—80 per cent of families did not previously claim either the full amount or any amount under the education tax refund. Think about that: 80 per cent of families are not benefiting from the current arrangements. This is where it is really strange: the opposition is seeking to block one million Australian families from receiving a payment in a more accessible way to meet the educational costs of schoolchildren.

We had Mr Hockey say, today I think, that for the baby bonus you need a baby. Well, certainly, for this entitlement the family needs a school-aged child—there is no argument on that point. I suggest that for the opposition to say we need to tie this allowance to the actual receipted expenditure does indeed seek to argue that there are Australian families that do not expend the amounts in the allowances that are proposed here. Think about it: $410 and $820. Are you seriously suggesting that Australian families are not expending those amounts to send their school-aged children to school?

Another aspect I think I should highlight is that this measure in that sense is not a shock. It is not a budget sham; it is not a surprise to anyone who has been following these issues. We have had the Ken Henry tax review suggest that we should make these very changes. We have looked at who has been accessing these entitlements and we have seen there is a serious problem. What stuns me, though, is why the opposition cannot see the same, why they would seek to block families from accessing quite reasonable and quite justifiable support in relation to the education costs of their children. There is no stunt; we have demonstrated very clearly there is an issue. The Ken Henry review supported the fact that there is an issue. The recent assessment of who has been claiming this entitlement tells us there is an issue—and, in these measures, we have set up appropriate arrangements to transition to a more sensible arrangement. How the opposition, when they can accept the fact that that is required for family tax benefit and can accept the fact that that is required for childcare assistance, cannot accept the fact that it is required for educational costs is astounding. This new payment will benefit 1.3 million Australian families with 2.2 million kids in primary school and secondary school. This is important legislation for families and I commend this motion to the Senate so that the bill can be passed before we break for budget estimates.