Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. This bill seeks to implement changes that the government announced in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, before last night's budget, and also in the National Carer Strategy.

The first measure contained in the bill seeks to provide an incentive for parents to immunise their children by making the payment of the family tax benefit part A supplement to parents conditional on their child meeting immunisation requirements. The second measure relates to the baby bonus. This measure pauses the indexation of the baby bonus for three years from July 2012. It also seeks to reduce the value of the baby bonus to $5,000 per child as of 1 September 2012.

My colleague in the other place the member for Menzies noted that this represents nearly a 10 per cent decrease in the value of the baby bonus, down from $5,437. It comes at a time when we know young families are doing it very tough, hence the framing of last night's budget. It does seem that despite all their rhetoric to the contrary the government are determined to drive up cost-of-living pressures for Australians. Nothing demonstrates this more than the impending carbon tax, which you will appreciate is fast approaching.

The member for Menzies also noted that this measure is one of many introduced across government aimed at reducing support for Australian families and should be placed in the context of the broader attack on middle Australia by the current government. This pausing in the indexation of the baby bonus follows the freezing of indexation of family tax benefit part A and part B supplement payments, in the 2011 budget. And add to this Labor's recent decision to again hit families by means testing the private health insurance rebate. I think it is pretty clear that a pattern is emerging.

Two other measures in this bill relate to the carer supplement and the carer payment. They have emerged from the National Carer Strategy. With the first of these changes, the eligibility for the carer supplement for some carers who have previously been excluded from receiving this payment, under the current legislation a carer who has had their carer payment rate reduced to nil by an income test is not eligible for the carer supplement of $600 per year. In the current situation those carers who combine their caring role with paid employment must sometimes choose between taking on work or losing their access to the carer supple­ment. This amendment seeks to rectify the situation by extending eligibility for the carer supplement to carers who qualify for the carer payment but have their payment rate reduced to nil on account of the income they earn through paid employment. The government contends that this will mean that the eligibility criteria for the carer supplement are no longer a disincentive to carers who are employed in paid work.

The second of the changes that relate to carers provides for a bereavement payment for low-income carers who care for adults, upon the death of the person for whom they care. Bereavement payments are made available to carers of children. This amendment extends that availability to those who have lost an adult they cared for.

Finally, this bill makes several minor clarifications and amendments, of a technical nature, to family assistance law. The coalition recognises the important role—as I know you do, Madam Acting Deputy President Moore—that carers play in the community. It is often 24 hours a day, seven days a week—it is care, love and support for a family member or a friend. Without that dedication and commitment there are tens of thousands, if not millions, of Australians who would have a much-reduced quality of life, so we are all united in a desire to support carers the best we can.

In that vein I want to note in passing the fact that this year is the 10th time, I think, that the Leader of the Opposition has undertaken the annual Pollie Pedal, and the organisation chosen to receive the funds raised from that venture was Carers Australia. The 1,000 kilometres cycled and the sponsorship and donations given through that exercise resulted in more than $500,000 being raised for Carers Australia. They were very worthy recipients, and I think that is the start of an ongoing relationship between Carers Australia and Pollie Pedal. I think it is extremely good that carers have been recognised in that very practical way.

As I have indicated, we do have some misgivings about this bill, not with all elements but with those I have indicated. But I indicate that we will not be seeking to oppose the bill.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens support most elements of the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amend­ment Bill 2012. In particular, we are in favour of improvements to bereavement payments and supplementary payments for carers. As has been articulated, and we know very well, there are over 2.6 million unpaid carers in Australia, of whom more than 770,000 are priority carers—in other words, they are providing the most care to people they are looking after.

We have talked at great length in the chamber before about the vital support that carers provide to those most in need in Australia. Up until fairly recently the role that carers played was largely unrecognised in the community. I am pleased to say that that has significantly improved, but we still have a long way to go in this country to ensure that our carers get the full support they need to provide that essential element of care. I remind the chamber that if these carers were not providing that care it would be a massive cost to our budget bottom line, because those carers provide care that otherwise would have to be paid for in this country.

Carers are a highly vulnerable group. Indicators consistently show that they are at the bottom of the income stream and of the health and welfare index. They are consistently at the bottom of it because they provide care at their own personal expense. Often they are financially worse off and, although respite services have improved—I will acknowledge that—they still leave a lot to be desired. These services continue to be underfunded, and any extra resources that support carers are a welcome and timely measure. Having said that and indicated our support, I would like to briefly touch on concerns about linking immunisation to family payments. The Greens support immunisation but we also support the parents' right to choose in relation to their children's health, and any measures by the government to link immunisation to family payments must also contain sufficient protections for parents' right to choose. Presently, an individual's eligibility for the maternity immunisation allowance is determined by whether a child meets the immunisation requirements. These require­ments can be met in a few different ways, including by showing that a recognised immunisation provider has certified in writing that he or she has discussed with the adult the benefits and risks of immunising the child and the adult has declared in writing that he or she has a conscientious objection to the child's being immunised.

This legislation replaces the maternity immunisation allowance requirements, linking it to family benefits. These pro­visions provide an important protection for parents who choose to conscientiously object to immunising their child and ensure that they are not penalised financially for this choice. The measure in this bill ceases the maternity immunisation allowance and amends the family assistance laws to make payments of the family tax benefit part A supplement conditional on a child meeting the immunisation requirements as set out in section 6 of the family assistance act. It is my understanding that the immunisation requirements, and therefore the ability to conscientiously object, are not changing. I welcome the government's maintaining of this protection and encourage them to make sure that this protection is maintained, because it is important that we do maintain parents' right to choose.

Having said that, I think it is important that parents demonstrate that they have actually weighed up the various opinions and evidence in order to make their decision. This does encourage parents to do that, but we need to maintain the parents' right to choose and to hold a conscientious objection, because I know from my discussions with parents that those who do choose to not have their children immunised have thought about it considerably and have made that conscious decision not to have their child immunised. This is not a judgment on whether that is right or wrong; this is saying that parents do have a right to choose and it is ensuring that that choice is maintained in this legislation.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a few comments with respect to the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 which I would like to put on the record. They essentially revolve around one of the key elements of this bill, which is reducing the baby bonus for families by almost 10 per cent, or $437. On top of that the government are freezing indexation for the next three years. This directly impacts on families who are already struggling with the cost of living. Those of us who are parents in this place can relate to the high costs associated with having a baby, and the baby bonus is aimed at assisting with those costs. My youngest son, in fact, was born only a matter of minutes before the baby bonus came into effect. I would have been substantially better off had it been the next day, but such is the way of childbirth!

With respect to assisting parents, my concern is that parents are unable to plan or to count on continuity from this government. In last night's budget speech, for example, we were told repeatedly that this was 'spreading the bonus' of the mining boom, that families would be getting assistance and things like that. The problem is that these one-off sugar hits do not give any confidence to families so that they can plan into the future. It leads to the conclusion that many people have come to: that this government really does not care, except for the politics of a particular circumstance. How can this government justify winding back the baby bonus, even in this relatively small measure for families that are already being affected by the cost of living, and yet refuse to deal with the fact that a carbon tax is going to be introduced on 1 July which is going to severely impact on the cost of living for families? How can it justify winding back assistance for families with newborn children and not accept the fact that its Building the Education Revolution was rorted to the tune of billions and billions of dollars? Indeed, what is this government doing winding back assistance for families with newborn children while electricity prices have gone up by 66 per cent since this government was elected? And gas prices are up by 39 per cent. Food and petrol prices have increased by 11 per cent. It is not exactly within the purview of the government to stop price rises, but the price rises are directly related to the financial incompetence and mismanagement that this government has inflicted upon the Australian economy. It is Economics 101, I would remind you—although you need no reminding, Madam Acting Deputy President Moore—

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

Did you do Economics 101?

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, indeed I did, Senator Collins—and perhaps you will get to that stage at some point in life—

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

I've already done it!

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to send you my textbook, if you would like to update yourself on Economics 101—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senators, I remind you to make your comments through the chair.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that, Madam Acting Deputy President. I would say to you, Madam Acting Deputy President, that if Senator Collins did complete Economics 101 she would in fact be finance minister or the Treasurer—because she couldn't do any worse a job than the current Treasurer or the finance minister are actually doing!

But I will put it in a simplified version for the benefit of those opposite: if a government is going to be excessively borrowing money and injecting it into the money supply then, indeed, you are going to have inflationary expectations. There are other dampers that have taken place, of course, but the things we need—the utilities, accommodation et cetera—are all rising in cost exponentially, and that is what is putting the burden on Australian families. The government will talk about headline inflation or the fact that the cost of bananas has come down or gone up or whatever the case may be, but you can opt out of buying bananas; you cannot opt out of having the electricity switched on or needing the gas or needing accommodation.

The other upshot of this is that, as money has been injected into the economy and squandered—and squandered grotesquely, along the lines of the Health Services Union—we are finding that the Reserve Bank has had to have interest rates much higher than they otherwise would be, to stop the economy getting overinflated. That has seen the international money markets chasing the safe haven of the Australian dollar, as a relative of high interest rates, because they can get six per cent on their deposits in this country as opposed to half a per cent or even less in many other comparable nations around the world. That has put our dollar higher and has made our manufacturing exporters less competitive. And it becomes this spiral of economic decay. The government for years denied that this is the case and that they are inflicting this pain on Australian families, until they had some sort of epiphany in which they recognised, 'Gee, excessive government spending does lead to higher interest rates, which does lead to a higher Australian dollar, which leads to less competitive economic factors.' So they have delivered a surplus. But what they have done in the process of delivering this apparent surplus—which I think is right up there with the Loch Ness monster, the surplus to be talked about but never seen—is put a knife through the heart of the Australian economy. They are doing that because there is no talk about productivity, there is no talk about the encouragement of incentive and enterprise. It is more about just throwing handouts to people, and handouts to people are not a good way of allowing people to determine their own future. They are one-off sugar stimulus hits to appease a group of people. That is what concerns me.

We had a structured approach to the baby bonus. It was supported over many years by both sides of parliament because they saw that there was an economic benefit in providing not only for our demographic environment but for the cost of childcare to assist families, particularly early on. When I say child care I do not mean institutional child care, of course; I mean the care for a child when it is brought into the world. The difficulty we have is that that is being replaced now, it is being wound back, under the guise of some efficiency dividend. I reject it. I think it is just another attack on families. The baby bonus has been means-tested since 2008. It is as if some babies are worth more than others. In the budget that same year this government means-tested family tax benefits. In 2009 they froze indexation for a number of benefits: full payment of family tax benefit A and B, the dependent spouse rebate and indeed the baby bonus. Last year they froze indexation for the supplement payments of both family tax benefits A and B. It has been a never-ending assault on families ever since Labor came to office.

The only reason there has needed to be an assault on families, the only reason Labor have had to engage in their historical mantra of class warfare once again, is that they have been unable to manage their own expenditure. The Australian people are taxed plenty; they are taxed too much. I make no bones about that. But this government has proved it is unable to live within its means, and that is one of the fundamental priorities of any government and any family. If a national government cannot live within its means, what sort of example is that setting for families out there in the community?

Australian families are concerned not just because some of the good initiatives of the Howard government are being wound back or shut down or closed off to some of them but they are concerned because they know that every dollar borrowed, every dollar of the $100 million every single week that is borrowed by this government, is going to have to be repaid by children born last year and the year before and the children born tomorrow. We are now facing intergenera­tional debt. In four years the Labor Party have raised $167 billion worth of deficits, the four biggest deficits on record. That compares starkly with the four largest surpluses in the history of this country which were achieved in the final four years of the Howard government. Based on Mr Swan's forecast of running a surplus of $1.5 billion in the next financial year, it will take 100 years of Mr Swan's surpluses to pay back four years of Labor's mismanagement. It is a joke. It is a terrible indictment on the philosophical approach this government is having—unable to control spending, unwilling to make the tough decisions that need to be made to stop the rorts and the waste, unwilling to even demote cabinet ministers who have proven themselves to be incompetent and hopeless. I am not talking about Senator Carr, who was unjustly dumped by Ms Gillard. I am talking about people who were the architects of the carbon tax debacle, about the people who wanted to inflict an emissions trading scheme upon us, about the people who were responsible for the insulation in people's roofs that burned houses down and unfortunately were responsible for a number of deaths of young installers. I am talking about the people who were behind the Building the Education Revolution rorts. I could go on and on. It comes back to the capacity and judgment of this government to determine what is in the national interest.

I do not believe that our Prime Minister in particular and the coterie of people around her propping her up have any capacity to act in the national interest. They have only ever acted in the political interest, anything that can get them through the day. We have seen that with our own Prime Minister, discredited as her words are after she uttered the immortal ones 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead', which was echoed by Mr Swan and a number of other Labor luminaries. I think the Australian public lost interest in what she had to say when she said words to the effect that Mr Thomson was doing a first-rate job and she had full confidence in him. You have to have a nose for scandal to recognise that something very dirty was going on there. No politician with any integrity would put themselves out on a limb like that defending something the process of which was clearly so flawed and that had been in the public domain for a very long time.

So, whilst Australian families are doing it tough, this government do not seem to care. They are doing enormous damage to families for decades to come because every dollar of this debt that has been incurred, every dollar of the $169 billion worth of deficits, will have to be repaid. It can be repaid through inflation, which is really a tax and robbery of those who seek to save. It can be repaid by devaluing and destroying currency, as we are seeing in any number of countries around the world. It can be repaid by reducing services or increasing taxes. Unfortunately, this government is only intent on increasing taxes. It is not willing to make effective cuts to some of its wasteful programs, it simply targets the programs that are providing perhaps the most benefit and the most confidence for Australian families. Just on confidence, this is what is lacking in our economy today, this is what is lacking in our families today. There is no confidence in the ability of this government to do the job they have been elected to do, which is govern in the national interest. There is no confidence in the business community to invest in their businesses or to take on extra staff or to grow their businesses, because they do not know which business, which community, which group is going to be targeted next by this government. We have seen them target any number of people that they think are fair game. We have seen them renationalise our telecommunications industry. We are seeing them increase taxes under the guise of health measures. We are seeing them target the mining industry, the single industry that is keeping the economy afloat. We saw them target truck drivers in last night's budget, with an extra 2c a litre fuel tax. They just look for targets, but they will not examine their own incompetence and hopelessness.

I think that is something that has really shut down the confidence of the Australian community. Everywhere I go, people say they are worried about the future. They are worried because they think they have a government that has no mind for the future; it is only about living in the 24-hour spin cycle, dominating the media cycle, smearing its opponents or making it tougher for families under the guise of helping them.

This bill will hurt families, but there are many other initiatives that will increase the pain for Australian families, not least of all the carbon tax, which comes into being on 1 July, which we were promised by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer and others would never happen—unless there was a citizens assembly, I might add, where there was a consensus in the community. We have seen those who have opposed the carbon tax be demonised and attacked, and we have seen the government in complete disarray over a tax that is going to damage our economy, damage Australian families and provide no measurable benefit for the environment.

Deep in their heart of hearts—those that have them in the Labor Party—they know that this is a tax they have no justification for, no mandate for, and they know it is going to be damaging for our economy. But unfortunately, until they replace an intransigent and belligerent leadership team, Australian families will be further disserviced over coming months by a government that, as I said before, has no real interest in the national interest; it is only about self-interest.

We will be letting this bill through, as Senator Fifield said, notwithstanding our grave reservations about the impact that it is going to have on Australian families. It is just another nail in the proverbial coffin of families being able to plan adequately for their own future and determine their own wellbeing.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank senators for their contributions to the second reading debate on the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012, although, in saying that, I question Senator Bernardi's contribution in terms of its relevance to this piece of legislation. I urge Senator Bernardi to read the budget. Some of the assertions that he made in his contribution to this debate bear no resemblance to the numbers that appear in the budget papers that were tabled in this chamber this morning. Senator Bernardi's comments were in fact quite fanciful. His contribution was simply a list of the rhetoric that we have heard for months and months from that side and bore no relevance to the facts. The budget that was brought down last night in fact is a strong budget for this country. It places Australia in a good position to be able to build on the benefits of the mining boom for our children and our grandchildren, unlike what happened in mining boom mark 1, where the benefits were frittered away and were not invested into the future. With this budget, we will have an investment into the future of our country that our children and grandchildren will be able to reap the benefits of.

I remind Senator Bernardi that the response of our government to the global financial crisis has been lauded inter­nationally. Treasurer Swan was awarded the title of best treasurer in the world by the distinguished magazine Euromoney, the same magazine that awarded our Treasurer Keating the title of best treasurer in the world back in 1984. I observe that Australia has only been given two of those awards, one in 1984 and one to our current Treasurer, Wayne Swan. I have got to say that the treasury bench was not held by Labor for a lot of that time in between. I could also observe that Australia has AAA credit ratings from all three ratings agencies that participate in the ratings program. That has never happened in this country before. There are many economic commentators who recognise that our country, under the leadership of Treasurer Swan, has done a good job of dealing with the global financial crisis and putting us in the position we are now placed in to be able to reap the benefits of the mining boom which is in front of us. But I digress. Having accused Senator Bernardi of digressing, I have done the same myself.

I thank senators for their contributions to this debate. Through this bill, the govern­ment is implementing the changes to family payments that were announced in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook and the improved support for carers outlined in the National Carer Strategy. The first of the changes to family payments is to strengthen incentives for families to have their young children immunised by linking the family tax benefit part A end-of-year supplement with immunisation. We all know how important immunisation is to a child's lifelong health as well as to the health of other children. We want to make sure that children have the best start in life and are immunised at the right time. So, from 1 July 2012, the end-of-year family tax benefit part a supplement, which is currently set at $726 per child each year, will be paid only when the child is fully immunised for the financial year in which a child turns one, two and five years of age. These new arrangements for the supplement will replace the maternity immunisation allowance, which will cease from 1 July 2012. We expect these reforms to improve immunisation coverage rates over time, giving Australia greater protection for our children.

The bill's second measure will help make sure that the baby bonus, which has increased by 67 per cent since it was introduced in 2004, is sustainable in the long term as an important part of the targeted family payment system. The amendment will, from 1 July 2012, pause the indexation of the baby bonus for three years. The payment rate will also be reset, to $5,000 per child, from 1 September 2012.

The third measure in the bill will improve the targeting of family tax benefit and reduce the risk of debts. This will be done by ending fortnightly payments of family tax benefit instalments to recipients who claim family tax benefit but are found to have no actual entitlement for two consecutive years follow­ing the end-of-year reconciliation with their income tax return. Families who are affected by the change would still be able to claim a lump sum at the end of the financial year. There will also be exceptions to prevent families being put at risk of hardship.

Lastly, the bill introduces two important amendments to support the Australian government's National Carer Strategy. The first amendment acknowledges that carers sometimes combine paid employment with their caring responsibilities. Under present income-testing arrangements, a carer cannot receive the annual carer supplement, which is worth $600 for each person they care for, if their or their partner's income has reduced their rate of payment to nil during a period that includes 1 July. This situation may disadvantage certain carers or their partners who may participate in casual or irregular work in addition to their caring commitments and who are offered extra employment in the period that includes 1 July. This bill overcomes the disincentive of the current arrangements by restoring entitlement to carer supplement to this group of carers. The other amendment for carers makes sure that a low-income carer who receives an income support payment as well as a carer allowance for care of an adult will be paid a bereavement payment on the death of the person they care for. I commend the amendment bill to the chamber.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.