Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Whilst I take note of her advice to the opposition about our opposition to the make-up of the stimulus package, I can assure her that I fully support the action taken by our coalition in opposition and will argue the merits of our position quite strongly and vociferously.

Coming back to the matter before us, the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2008 makes a number of amendments to the operation of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. My role as a member of parliament, as with other members of parliament, involves regularly dealing with constituents who approach my office with Centrelink or Child Support Agency decisions with which they do not agree. I frequently refer them to the SSAT and encourage them to exercise their rights of review and appeal. Indeed, a member of my staff is a former SSAT member and reminds me that the tribunal offers a mechanism of external review that is fair, just, economical, informal and quick. Certainly for a number of my constituents their appeals to the tribunal have resulted in outcomes to their satisfaction. I have admiration for Centrelink staff and fully understand that in implementing complex government income support policies—more so of late—they encounter frustrated clients. These are the same clients who frequently contact my office to vent their frustration at the inequities of the Rudd government’s income support policies. I might also take this opportunity to thank my front office staff, who also deal professionally and empathically with unhappy and sometimes very angry constituents.

The economic stimulus bonus is one of those issues that has caused some angst amongst my constituents. While I welcomed it in December for the more than 30,000 people in my electorate who received a bonus, the reality is that the benefit for many was short lived. Once the bonus was spent, pensioners and families still struggled to pay the increased costs of living, such as the electricity bill. Many of them will be facing quite a huge increase in their electricity bill in view of the 48-degree temperatures we have experienced in large parts of my electorate. That bill will no doubt be a big one. They still struggle with the increased costs of a weekly basket of food and medicines and fuel—increased charges that pensioners, veterans and families face every day.

I will take this opportunity to point out a flaw in the administration of the economic stimulus bonus payment that has come to my attention. Under the Howard government, if a person qualified for an income support payment on budget day when the bonuses were announced, they qualified for the bonus. Not so under Labor. In order to receive the bonus in December a person had to be eligible some two months earlier, on 14 October 2008. Take the case of a 50-year-old constituent in my electorate. On 17 October 2008 the constituent and his wife, also in her 50s, were awarded custody of their three young grandchildren by the court. They have asked me not to use their names, because of concern for these children, and I think we can all understand that. At a time when they are of an age to contemplate a quieter life or even retirement, this couple took on the care of three very young children, the youngest of whom is only three years of age.

The constituent and his wife receive family tax benefit for their grandchildren but were denied the bonus. They were not paid the $3,000 economic stimulus bonus because they were not in receipt of family payments on 14 October. They missed out by three days. In December the bonus was paid to the children’s mother because the children were in her care on 14 October, notwithstanding that in December she had not had to care for her children for two months, and further notwithstanding that the courts have determined she was not fit to care for the children.

The bonus did not reach the children, and it certainly did not reach my constituent who was looking after the children. I understand there has to be a line in the sand, and a start date is the essence of any law. The Rudd government should have made provision for those who came onto allowances in the intervening period—between when the bonus was announced and when it was paid. It is patently unfair to the couple, who now have to provide beds, clothing, toys, school fees and uniforms for their grandchildren, as well as the two months of looking after the children. I give notice to the minister that I will be seeking her intercession for an ex gratia payment equal to the bonus for my constituent.

A further constituent approached me about a similar outcome. Mr Peter Olsen, living in an isolated rural area, has been a long-term recipient of a disability support pension following diagnosis of a serious and potentially terminal condition. Mr Olsen received a one-off offer of temporary employment for a few weeks. After medical advice he undertook this employment and when it ended he went back onto the disability support pension but because he was working for those first few weeks he received no payment of pension on the test date of 14 October 2008. This also means that Mr Olsen received no bonus, despite being back on disability support pension a few weeks later—certainly in December when the bonus was paid. Notwithstanding that he received a pension payment for 13 October, he missed out on the bonus by one day. What is particularly irksome to Mr Olsen is that at no time was he advised that he would not be receiving the bonus. At the very least it might have been prudent for the Rudd government to make clear to Mr Olsen and other pensioners in this unusual situation that they should not count on receiving that bonus, which as long-term social security recipients, they had understandably been expecting. Regrettably, Mr Olsen has precommitted the bonus funds and finds himself in financial difficulties. I seek the minister’s discretion in this case.

Apart from those anomalies I support the legislation, as does the opposition. We think it is important legislation and that is why we support it in full.

See this speech in context