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

I rise to speak on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (2012 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2012. This bill seeks to implement a range of changes to the eligibility for certain income support payments as announced in the 2012-13 budget as well as make other amendments to child support legislation.

Schedule 1 of the bill seeks to extend the current income exemption for the Western Australian government's country age pension fuel card and the cost-of-living rebate scheme. The current exemption is due to expire on 30 June 2012 and the extension, due to run indefinitely from 1 July 2012, will ensure that people continue to enjoy the full benefit of the Western Australian government assistance without a reduction in their pension payments.

Schedule 2 seeks to narrow the timeframe for people who travel overseas while receiving particular income support and family payments. That is due to come into effect on 1 January 2013. The change will see the length of time that people can spend overseas while still receiving payments decrease from 13 weeks to six weeks. There are exemptions for this for age pension recipients and disability support pension recipients deemed by the department to have a severe or permanent disability and, as a result, no future work capacity. Individuals studying overseas as part of an approved Australian course are also exempt from this change. Likewise, the maximum basic rate of the service pension, disability pension and war widows pension paid by the Department of Veterans' Affairs is not affected by this change.

Other social security payments, including the pension supplement, will be affected and recipients of the family tax benefit part A will continue to be paid for up to three years of temporary absence but the payment will reduce to only the base rate after six weeks absence from Australia.

In schedule 3, the amendments promoted by this bill mean that families with children aged over 18 who are not engaged in full-time education or vocational study are no longer eligible for the family tax benefit part A. Eligibility is extended for those children aged 18 and 19 who are full-time students to the end of the calendar year, after which time their families are no longer eligible. This reduction from the current threshold of 21 years of age will result in 43,000 teenagers losing their entitlement to this payment, with 53,000 families left without this support, which is vital. We know that cost-of-living pressures are bearing down on families and households. With the impending carbon tax, those will only be exacerbated. In fact, I cannot remember a time in my adult years when cost-of-living issues have been such a source of comment from members of the public. I hear them now in their capacity as my constituents. There will be more young people at home with mum and dad. Cost-of-living pressures will continue to rise. It is peculiar that this government, as the Australian public expresses concern about cost-of-living pressures, seems to be doing everything that it can to exacerbate those, whether through the carbon tax or through taking some forms of income support away from households. This government takes a perverse approach.

The bill also proposes some non-government amendments. Inequity in child support income testing for family tax benefit part A will be addressed. Individuals who collect child support privately will have their maintenance income test based on the individual's child support entitlement rather than restricting the family tax benefit part A to the base child rate when they do not collect the full child support entitlement. This will come into effect from 1 July 2012. As well as this, the bill amends the legislation to permit a percentage of care for child support and family tax benefit purposes to be based on the actual care of the child in certain circumstances of violence or unusual behaviour.

The bill also clarifies eligibility for the clean energy low-income supplement of a group of low-income families who would otherwise not benefit fully from the assistance required due to the impacts of the carbon tax. I guess it is good on one level that the bill clarifies eligibility for that supplement. But we on this side of the chamber think that there is a much better way to proceed, and that is to repeal the carbon tax. If there is no carbon tax then quite clearly as a matter of logic you do not need compensation. The government has spent a lot of time, effort and money promoting their clean energy low-income supplements, household assistance packages and schoolkid bonuses—a lot of money. But it has all been in an effort to try to mask the effects of the carbon tax and to try to distract people from the introduction of the carbon tax. Quite simply, if you do not have a tax you do not need the compensation and you certainly do not need those distractions.

I know the government also thinks there is a benefit in this massive public expenditure on advertising. If there is one lesson we learnt from our time in government—in fact there were probably many lessons we learnt from that time—it is that advertising campaigns on things such as Work Choices and to promote the policies of the government of the day actually do not have the desired effect. It annoys the public that you are spending money that could be better directed elsewhere. It also annoys them because you can really be reminding them of a policy that they do not particularly like. You might be trying to put the best gloss on it but in that endeavour you actually are reminding them of a policy they might not like. I do not think this government has learnt in office what we did when we were in office. They complained an awful lot about our expenditure on advertising and about the efficacy of that spending. They probably should have been quite happy about our spending because I think some of those advertising campaigns helped them more than they helped us. The lesson has been well learnt on our side and I think it also should be learnt on the other side that when you are spending taxpayers' money on advertising campaigns it should be for informational purposes. It should be to explain a policy. It should not be—

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So you will spend money. That is the point. You will spend money.

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

I will take the interjection. Governments of all persuasions will always spend money on advertising, but there is appropriate advertising and inappropriate advertising, and we were promised that the Labor Party, when they assumed office, would be better and would learn the lessons that we have now learnt. But it appears they have not. I digress, but I think it is a point worth making.

This bill also makes some small amendments, including amending the child support legislation, to clarify the authority for the practice of automated decision making using computer programs. I may well ask the minister at the next estimates if he can take us through a little more of what that involves.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Decision making.

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

Decision making; that is right. But there is a gap in my knowledge there that I am sure the minister will be able to fill in the next Senate estimates.

The government is increasing the level of debt the nation has. Their efforts in the last budget were to try to achieve what I call a technical surplus. There was a bit of fudging and moving things around between financial years to at least enable the Treasurer on budget night to, not deliver, but to forecast a technical surplus. A lot of the changes in the legislation before us were designed to help facilitate that technical surplus—pulling a bit of money back here and a bit back there. The objective was to be seen to be forecasting a surplus. It is an illusory surplus.

We know from each of this government's budgets that what they forecast on budget night cannot be relied upon. I well recall Mr Swan's very first budget, where he proudly pronounced that the budget was forecasting a surplus—I think he said it was the biggest in a decade as a percentage of GDP. He said it was in excess of his 1.5 per cent of GDP target for a budget surplus. As we know, that surplus was not to be. Of course, as always, it was for reasons completely beyond the control of the government.

They are a very unlucky government, as you have probably come to appreciate, Mr Acting Deputy President. They are in this chaotic universe where they are always the victim of circumstance; it is always issues beyond their control. They always try their best but, darn it, something always gets in the way, and it is never their fault. We saw that in Mr Swan's first budget. The global financial crisis was cited as the problem then. Those who take the time to look back over the budget papers will appreciate that the reason the budget was in deficit that year, and has been in deficit for the three financial years since, is not because of revenue write-downs from the global financial crisis but because of policy decisions by the government. By policy decisions, I mean spending decisions.

The government has not done a bad job at conveying the impression that the budget deficits are due to revenue write-downs. You know how it goes: consumer confidence falls, business confidence falls, tax receipts fall and therefore the budget, beyond our control, goes into deficit. That is not true. It is not why the budget is in deficit. The budget is in deficit because of the spending decisions and policy decisions of the government. Look back at each financial year and that is the case. The revenue write-downs are not enough, in and of themselves, to see the budget in deficit. It is spending decisions.

That is why in the budget that Mr Swan presented not long ago—and this amendment bill seeks to give effect to some of those measures—he was so desperate to finally, ultimately, be in a position where he could forecast a budget surplus. I would place a bet with you, Mr Acting Deputy President Edwards—although you are probably not a betting man; not in this place but maybe you are outside—that the forecast budget surplus will not come to be. The last budget, as with Mr Swan's previous four budgets, is a work of fiction. As I pointed out before, Mr Swan has been very helpful. In taking the treasury bench, he changed the colour of the budget papers to differentiate them from the Costello budget papers. The Costello budget papers were all in classic white. Mr Swan changed the colour of his budget papers to blue, which is very convenient because I have all the budgets for the last 15 or so years on a shelf. It makes it very easy to point out the surplus budgets from the deficit budgets—they are basically colour coded. That is something helpful that Mr Swan has done.

I return to one of the elements of this legislation—changes to the disability support pension—to make the point that I think we have expected the disability support pension to do a number of different things. We have expected it to be an income support for people whose disability means that they will never work, people who have an extremely profound disability. We have also expected the disability support pension to serve as an income support for those people who have been injured or have a condition from which they can recover, so we have expected it to be a transitional payment. We have also expected the DSP to be more than income support. We have expected Australians who have profound disabilities to use some of that money to buy aids and equipment, to purchase supports which they need compared to other Australians.

The DSP was never designed to be more than income support. That is one of the reasons why it is so critical that a national disability insurance scheme comes into being. People who follow Australians with a disability know that there are waiting lists for supported accommodation and waiting lists for aids and equipment, as Senator McLucas knows very well. I think there has been a misapprehension that the disability support pension is designed to enable people to purchase some of those things. It was never designed to do that; it was designed to be an income support.

The Commonwealth has had traditional responsibility for income support for disabilities. It is the states and the territories who have had the prime responsibility for providing those other supports—for providing respite, aids and equipment and supported accommodation. Over time, the states and territories have funded about half of what needs to be funded. Hence we have the waiting lists and the rationing. I make the point, as we are talking about legislation which seeks to make some changes to the disability support pension, that I think there has been a misapprehension as to what the role of the DSP is meant to be. It is meant to be purely income support and that is why we so greatly need a national disability insurance scheme—so that we do not expect the DSP to continue to do more than it was designed to do.

As I am talking about the National Disability Insurance Scheme, it is appropriate to acknowledge this is one of the areas where there is cross-party support. Whenever I look at a piece of legislation in the social security area, it always reminds me what the core business of government should be—providing assistance to those citizens who find themselves faced with additional challenges for reasons beyond their control. We may often disagree across this chamber about what is an appropriate role for government, but one thing I know we all agree upon is that the core business of government is providing support for people who face additional challenges for reasons beyond their control. It is Australians with disability who most clearly fit that definition. A point well made by the Productivity Commission in their report on a national disability insurance scheme was that, if you are designing what it is that government does from scratch, one of the first things you would start with would be proper support for people with disability.

The opposition will not be opposing this bill. It has some useful technical amendments but we also acknowledge that it is reducing payments to some people for the purpose of achieving a technical surplus. As I indicated before, we on this side think that there is a better way. I conclude my remarks there as I know there are a number of colleagues who have contributions to make and we are operating in a time limited environment as the guillotine will kick in in the not too distant future.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

By agreement with the whips, I seek leave to have Senator Rachel Siewert's speech in the second reading debate incorporated into Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Australian Greens welcome the modest improvements to social security arrangements that are set out in some of the schedules to this bill, however we are extremely concerned by changes to the conditions and benefits of vulnerable income support recipients.

The continuous squeezing of all social security recipients is part of a legacy — started by the Howard Government, and continued, with gusto, by the present Government. This Bill is just another step along a so called 'tough-love' path; a path than serves only to disempower people and to fuel negative stereotypes.

The Greens cannot support Schedule 2 of this Bill. It will reduce the period for which a wide array of social security payments can be received while overseas, from 13 to six weeks. Over twenty different benefits are affected.

The government has repeatedly reduced the eligibility criteria for overseas travel, from 12 months, to 26 weeks, and then to 13 weeks. Not content with this, and despite known cases of hardship, the government wants to reduce it once again, to 6 weeks.

The National Welfare Rights Network has indicated that the changes to portability have the potential to particularly disadvantage people who have come here as migrants or refugees, and who have family members dispersed across the globe to whom they have strong ties of responsibility:

"Often people who access the portability provisions want to be able to stay with close relatives such as parents or children. The person needing to travel may be frail or have severe ill-health. This is particularly important for people who do not have family members in Australia and the restrictions in this Bill would limit their ability to spend some quality time with their parent(s) or closed member of their family."

Also, six weeks is often insufficient time for those seeking cheaper or alternative medical treatment overseas.

Taking into account Australia's history as a nation built on immigration, the economic contribution of migration policies and the distance of Australia from other countries, the proposal to limit portability is problematic. Furthermore, considering how much it costs to go overseas, being able to stay overseas for only six weeks is unfair. Penalising people for wanting to spend time with dying family members or for seeking medical treatment is not acceptable.

While there are some provisions for exemptions, it has been made clear by advocacy organisations that they are too restrictive to address legitimate needs. The Greens

We agree that social security in Australia needs reform, reform that adequately supports people at the most vulnerable time of their lives, not reform that causes further harm and disempowers people. The Greens can't support these schedules of the Bill.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (2012 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2012. I acknowledge Senator Siewert's work throughout the inquiry conducted by the Senate Community Affairs Committee on this bill and I note her absence. This bill contains seven schedules amending different aspects of social security eligibility and payments. The shadow spokesman for disability, Senator Fifield, very articulately outlined the wide impacts of this variety of amendments, commenting on the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the importance of social inclusion within our community to ensure that those who need our assistance are able to receive it. As previous speakers have noted, this bill addresses an array of measures, and I will make sure my comments relate specifically to them. The Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs said of this bill in their submission to the Senate committee inquiry:

The amendments contained within the Bill will contribute to the ongoing sustainability of the Australian social security system and better reflect the expectations of most Australian taxpayers about how social security expenditure should be targeted.

As I said earlier, I am a member of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, which conducted the inquiry into this bill, and much of the commentary I make tonight will reflect information we garnered through that process.

Schedule 1 goes to excluded income. There are currently around 50,000 Western Australians—and I am sure my committee colleague Senator Smith will expand on the details—who benefit from the government's country age pension fuel card, which provides eligible pensioners with up to $500 a year towards the cost of fuel and/or taxi travel from participating providers. The country age pension fuel card helps to ease some of the financial burden of those living in regional areas who do not have ready access to public transport. Having to rely on their own means of transport to get to providers can be costly and can restrict access to central medical services. The WA government also has a cost-of-living rebate scheme which is designed to help eligible senior card holders with rising living expenses. Around 260,000 Western Australians applied to the Cost of Living Rebate Scheme in 2011. Federal government backing for these schemes makes sense, as to do otherwise would leave pensioners in the absurd situation of receiving support from one government only to have it reduced or removed by another level of government treating these benefits as income. Collectively, these people will now breathe a sigh of relief that they can continue to receive the full value of the assistance provided by the Western Australian government without incurring a reduction in their pension.

Schedule 2 deals with portability. 'Portability' refers to the ability of recipients of welfare payments to continue to receive those payments whilst travelling overseas. At present, those on many payments can be absent from Australia for up to 13 weeks, with no impact on their payments. Whilst there are also some payments, such as Newstart, that are not portable, there have been a number of recent changes to the portability arrangements for those with no capacity to work. For example, a disability support pension recipient with a severe and permanent impairment will, as of 1 July, have indefinite portability. Age pension recipients; disability support pension recipients assessed as having a severe and permanent disability, and no future work capacity; and students studying overseas as part of an approved Australian course will not be affected. New measures in this bill will limit the period of travel for those on many payments to six weeks or less. We believe that that is an appropriate length of time for Australians who are in receipt of some of these payments to travel overseas to deal with family emergencies—funerals, illnesses and the like—and provide support to family members overseas. The estimated savings from the reduction of the portability period are $127.2 million over two years. Obviously, in light of our current budgetary situation, that is a positive thing.

The National Welfare Rights Network, in their submission to the inquiry, highlighted the special circumstances some people face that mean they be disadvantaged and singled out two groups as those who will be most affected, one being refugees:

Refugees/former refugees with family spread all over the globe (accepted in differing third countries). These people often ask Centrelink for permission to go overseas to visit a relative who is dying and are refused or granted approval for just one week’s payment (on Newstart Allowance). A reduction of the portability period to six weeks is a very short time to travel, visit someone who may pass away and then attend a funeral.

However, I believe that six weeks is more than enough time for somebody to deal with those types of family matters, and there is a capacity in the legislation to seek an exemption. The other group singled out by the National Welfare Rights Network are people with medical conditions who benefit from overseas trips through either cheaper treatment or a change in climate. They also say:

Again 6 weeks is a short time for these people to have to pay to go overseas for such a brief period of time.

But the department, FaHCSIA, said in their submission:

Six weeks is seen as a reasonable period of time for an Australian resident to manage family or personal matters that may arise from time to time overseas.

And we would concur.

During the inquiry, the committee questioned the department about how they could ensure that people would be made aware of the changes to this rule, given that some people have unwittingly travelled overseas for longer than the current portability provisions allow and have been quite disadvantaged by the cutting-off of their pension while they were overseas. So the communication from the department to pension recipients about these changes was something we sought to emphasise. The department suggested that Centrelink staff would work with pension recipients who notify them of an overseas trip to help them understand the new rules and any special exemptions that apply. Schedule 3 deals with age or study rules for children for family assistance payments. Additionally, family tax benefit part A will no longer be available for young people aged 18 or over unless they are in full-time special study from 1 January next year. Family tax benefit part A is designed to help with the cost of raising children. Once those children are legally adults, they can reasonably be expected to access any government payments they may be eligible for in their own right such as youth allowance. This amendment is subsequent to earlier steps taken to reduce the previous eligible age from 24 to 21 and is in line with recommendations from the Henry review.

Schedule 4 assesses family tax benefit and reasonable maintenance action. The changes to the family tax benefit part A rate provisions proposed in schedule 4 are designed to produce better outcomes for parents receiving child support payments. Those considered to be taking reasonable steps to ensure they receive the appropriate child support payments have their rate of family tax benefit A as calculated—the child support payable that is calculated—taken into consideration when calculating the family tax benefit part A. However, when you are privately collecting that child support you may or may not be receiving the actual child support as calculated, hence a reduction in family tax benefit part A despite not getting the full child support. The parent in this circumstance is effectively penalised twice—once by not receiving their child-support payment and again when their actual lower income level is not considered in their allocation of family tax benefit part A.

The committee heard from the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children Inc., an organisation dedicated to single mothers. In relation to the maintenance income test, they said in their submission to the inquiry:

The MIT produces an inequitable and disproportional impact for single parent households when compared to a two-parent family. Currently, when child support is received the Family Tax Benefit A is reduced by 50 cents in the dollar for low threshold amounts commencing at $1,368.75 per year and continuing until the payment reaches the base rate of Family Tax Benefit A.

However, a two parent family may receive income of up to $45,114 for the financial year which will then gradually reduce by 20 cents for each dollar above $45,114 until the payment reaches the base rate of Family Tax Benefit Part A.

Clearly this is an issue we do not want to see continuing.

Schedule 5 looks at the percentage of care for children. The fifth change this bill brings about relates to the care of children when split between two or more carers. There are a number of complex calculations involved in the determination of government payments when care of a child is split between two carers. The amendment allows for changes in government payment through family tax benefit part A to be made more quickly in the case of special circumstances such as incidents of family violence. In relation to these issues the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children Inc. advocated through the inquiry process for a review of the whole child-support scheme. They said in their submission:

A more sophisticated child support system would align the cost of care provided with the actual time and not an artificially inflated discount.

They were referring to basically a 24 per cent discount in child-support once one carer has 50 days, or effectively one night a week, care of their child.

Schedule 6 of the bill refers to the low-income supplement which relates to compensation for the carbon tax. Again, as Senator Fifield outlined earlier, it would be great if it were not required. I could not support that notion more strongly. It would be great if we did not have to compensate low-income earners for the effects of the government's carbon tax; it would be great if we did not have to compensate the Latrobe Valley, as a whole region, for the effects of the government's carbon tax; it would be great if we did not have to compensate food and foundry producers for the effects of the carbon tax. In less than five days the carbon tax will be upon us and people's personal electricity bills will be rising—but the tax will be also be applied right through our economy and people will need to be compensated. Let us hope that the compensation does not actually stop people wanting to reduce their carbon footprint and that it will result in a behaviour change that will bring about action on climate change and not simply be fed into a financial churn. We have been spending a lot of time as a coalition reflecting on the particular model that the government has chosen to address climate change, as we watch the government refuse to take on board the will and the views of the Australian people on this issue.

I will return to the bill before us. I am conscious that many coalition senators want to speak to this bill, and we are having to constrain our remarks because of the government's guillotining of democracy and its guillotining of our contributions on this legislation. The low-income support payment is to be paid as an annual tax exempt lump sum of $300 for people on low incomes who meet the eligibility criteria, including a low-taxation liability and not being in receipt of other forms of government compensation for the carbon tax. If they are a small business family who may not have returned a great profit this year, one wonders how that will all work out.

This seems designed to provide assistance to those not reached by any other form of carbon tax compensation, as promoted so widely and readily on TV. Those in receipt of the veteran's pension received letters last week outlining the cash that would be available to them. It was phrased in those sorts of terms. There was no mention of the burden of the carbon tax, nothing about addressing climate change and nothing about positive steps we can take for the environment. It was all about saying, 'Here is some cash for you.' I think that is treating the Australian people like mugs, but there is nothing new about this government pursuing that sort of tactic in introducing its carbon tax. All of that means that the low-income supplement is another new payment, with more red tape, which would not have been necessary if there were not going to be a carbon tax.

Finally—I say that because I did mention there were seven schedules in this bill—I come to schedule 7. It covers other amendments, including the authority for the practice of automated decision making using computer programs. Like Senator Fifield, it is with bated breath that I await estimates so we can pursue that topic. I would hate to interrupt the minister and his conversation on the other side of the chamber to see what he thinks about that, so we will wait for estimates.

With the wide range of amendments proposed in this bill, the government is trying to achieve a variety of aims across different groups within our community. As mentioned by Senator Fifield, the coalition will not be opposing the bill. In the interests of allowing time for my colleagues to speak, I will cede to them.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (2012 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2012. In doing so, I am hoping to address a number of elements but I am conscious that time is against me because of the government's decision to give democracy a severe blow and impose the guillotine. With the time I have, however, I am hoping to touch on some of the elements in the bill which are particularly relevant to Western Australia and to discuss the government's gross disregard for Western Australian families and for regional Western Australia. If there is time, I am also hoping to talk about some of the truths and myths about electricity pricing in Western Australia. As I said, however, we are facing a guillotine, so I can only do my best.

I am pleased to speak on this bill as a member of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, a committee I have recently joined. I would also like to add to the comments of Senator McKenzie and acknowledge the contribution of Senator Siewert, who is absent this evening. She can be confident that our thoughts are with her and her family at this time.

I begin by thanking the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children and the National Welfare Rights Network for their comments during the brief public hearing phase. This bill introduces a number of initiatives of the 2012 budget. I will only highlight a few.

Firstly, this bill tightens rules for those who travel overseas while receiving income support payments and family payments. Under the change, from 1 January 2013, the length of time individuals can spend overseas while continuing to receive their payments will generally be reduced from 13 weeks to six weeks. The change will not apply to age pension recipients or to disability support pension recipients assessed, under new rules applying from 1 July 2012, as having a severe and permanent disability and no future work capacity.

Secondly, the bill limits the family tax benefit part A to children aged under 18. Families with children under the age of 18 and 19 who are studying full time may continue to get payments until the end of the calendar year in which they complete secondary education or equivalent vocational education. It is fair to say that elements of this bill are building on reforms made over previous years to ensure the family payment system is targeted to low- and middle-income families with young children on their way to completing their schooling.

The bill also amends the clean energy low-income support supplement provisions to clarify the eligibility of a group of low-income families who may otherwise not be fully compensated for the average cost impacts they are expected to suffer under the carbon price. Of course if there were no carbon tax, there would be no need to offer compensation. As we count down to the start of the carbon tax on 1 July 2012—this Sunday in fact—time is running out for the government to reverse its carbon tax insanity. Many, I think, have given up holding their breath.

As a Western Australian, I am pleased that there are some important and positive elements in this bill for Western Australians. The bill will extend permanently the current income test exemption for the Western Australian government's country age pension fuel card and the Cost of Living Rebate Scheme. The country age pension fuel card is an important initiative of the Western Australian government and they should be congratulated for it. It is worth noting the cooperation of the Australian government in previously exempting the value of the WA country fuel card and the Cost of Living Rebate Scheme from the social security and veterans income test for the three years up to June 2012. This bill now makes this exemption permanent, giving eligible Western Australians confidence that, over the longer term, their income support payments will not be reduced because of benefits received through the Western Australian government. The Premier of Western Australia and the Leader of the Nationals in WA should be congratulated on these two initiatives that support Western Australians, especially those living in regional Western Australia. I have a strong interest in fighting for regional Western Australians and I am pleased the bill extends the income test exemption on these two excellent initiatives and does so permanently.

The Western Australian state government's country age pension fuel card scheme has reached over 45,000 pensioners in Western Australia since it was introduced in 2008—a great result for Western Australian pensioners. For those interested, the 45,000th pensioner was a resident of Geraldton in the mid-west of Western Australia, a Mr Alfred Kauffman. I am not too sure if he has ever had his name in the Senate Hansard before, but I am pleased to get it in there for him. As we heard from Senator McKenzie, the initiative allows pensioners a $500 entitlement towards the cost of fuel and taxi fares each year. One of the great things about the scheme is that it benefits everyone differently—it suits people's different but individual circumstances. Importantly, the scheme helps to alleviate some, but not all, of the financial pressures faced by pensioners across regional Western Australia, especially those on fixed incomes.

The Cost of Living Rebate Scheme is an annual payment to eligible seniors card holders and was also introduced in 2009. It assists with living expenses for seniors in the Western Australian community.

I would love to have traversed some other issues dealing with—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allocated for consideration of this bill has expired. The question is that this bill now be read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.