Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I want to echo and build on the remarks of the member for Jagajaga. My regret in rising now is that I didn't have time after the last division to go back to my office and put on a black suit, because the irony is that this is a funeral and these are the funeral rites, if I can put it in those terms, for the bereavement allowance. We won't have an opportunity again—because these amendments will go back to the Senate where the bill will be finalised—to remark upon the death of the bereavement allowance. So I'll give what is perhaps a brief eulogy, in the context of the amendment, so that we are really clear what these amendments actually do and what the grubby little deal the government has cooked up with Senator Hanson actually means.

The bereavement allowance was a payment that's existed for many, many a year. It was paid for up to 14 weeks to someone at the age pension rate when their partner had died. It was subject to very strict income and assets tests so it was a well-targeted payment. If you happened to be a pregnant woman and your partner died, it got paid for a bit more than 14 weeks, until your pregnancy ended. That seems pretty reasonable. We've heard the minister say: 'This is all about consolidating payments. There's nothing to see here. Don't you worry about that. It's just kind of chucking a few things together and changing the name.' In the name of welfare reform, what the government really meant by this is saving $1,300 over 14 weeks through shoving people from one rate of the bereavement allowance into a jobseeker payment. It is entirely unclear of course whether pregnant women would have to go and start searching for jobs while they were grieving their partners, depending on whether they were in their pregnancy. That's what the government wanted to do.

Senator Hanson, of course, voted to get rid of the bereavement allowance, then ran around telling Australia that's not what she did—even though she actually did—had a panic and cooked up a completely ridiculous fix, so-called, with the government, which we are now seeing here in the form of these amendments, to make it a bit less awful. That is, to paraphrase the member for Jagajaga, why we are letting these amendments through: because it is a bit less awful than it would otherwise be. Then the minister tried to make us believe in his—what's the right word for his tone, member for Cowan?—calm, reasonable, 'nothing to see here'—that no-one is worse off now because of this weird grubby little deal with Senator Hanson. I think, member for Jagajaga, it took you three or four goes yesterday to finally extract something approximating the truth from him. He finally told us that at least 30 Australians will be worse off because of the way these amendments have been stupidly drafted and conceived. So the government may go, 'Oh, well, we've saved a bit of money.' But I'd look at that and go, 'What on earth are you picking on 30 Australians for? Why are you making them lose $1,300? That's your version of reform? That's going to make an impact on your $23.6 billion deficit, to take $1,300 off 30 grieving Australians? That's your agenda?' I say, shame on you. Vale bereavement allowance. You should be held to account for these kinds of nasty, mean little cuts.

I will finish on a moment of solidarity with the minister. When we finished the debate yesterday—which was longer and more robust, shall I say, than expected—we were walking out and the member for Jagajaga said, 'Well done.' I said, 'It's very disconcerting, I must say, verging on terrifying, having you stare at me while I'm talking.' So I think the minister well knows the pain that I was feeling, given your performance in question time and why you're looking at the table now.

See this speech in context