David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the Social Services Legislation Amendment (More Generous Means Testing for Youth Payments) Bill 2015. As is often the case, I suspect I will be the only parliamentarian to do so.

The government has budgeted for a $35 billion deficit this year, and the prospect of debt and deficit extends as far as the eye can see. The government acknowledges that we have a spending problem, with government spending as a share of GDP being as high as at any time since the early 1990s, once you account for spending that this Senate refuses to cut. But this bill allows dependent kids of asset-rich parents to get youth allowance. It is a bald-faced expansion of middle- and upper-class welfare, and it will increase government spending by an estimated $263 million by 2019.

Currently youth allowance is denied to students and unemployed youths whose personal income or personal assets exceed certain thresholds. Youth allowance is also denied to students and unemployed youths who are dependent on their parents, if their parents have income or assets above certain thresholds. This is as it should be. But this bill removes the assets test. As such, students and unemployed youths who have significant personal assets or who are dependent on parents with significant assets will become eligible for youth allowance. The Nationals want the dependent kids of asset-rich parents to get welfare, because some farm families are asset rich. It has even been suggested that this bill should be renamed the 'Senator McKenzie Re-election Bill'. But the existing parental asset test already includes carve-outs that help asset-rich farm families. Only a quarter of the value of farm and business assets are included in the test. The family's principal home is excluded from the test, and the asset test does not apply if the family receives a Farm Household Allowance.

There is no problem with the definition of dependent that would justify the government's attempt to jettison the parental assets test for dependent kids either. You are defined as being dependent, and hence subject to the parental assets test, only if you are able to live at home and you have parents who can exercise their responsibilities; if you are not a full-time student or apprentice over 21 years of age; if you have not worked for 18 of the past 24 months; if you have no limits on your capacity for work or education; if you are not married or in a year-old de facto relationship, and if you do not have a dependent child. This is a very restrictive definition of dependent, such that youth allowance is only ever denied to people who clearly do not need it.

This bill shows that the coalition government is prepared to bribe voters in the hope of retaining rural votes. It is sad to say that this government is not serious about reducing government spending and resolving our debt and deficit problem.