Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) 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 amend legislation following government announcements.

Firstly, it seeks to permanently extend the current income test exemption for the Western Australian government's country age pension fuel card and the cost of living rebate scheme. The bill seeks to reduce the length of time people on income support payments and family payments can spend overseas, while continuing their payments, from 13 to six weeks. It also seeks to reduce the age of eligibility for family tax benefit part A from 21 years to 18 years. In addition, the bill will make changes to the percentage of care for child support and family tax benefit purposes based on the actual care of the child. The bill will amend the clean energy low income supplement provisions to clarify the eligibility of a group of low-income families who may otherwise not be fully assisted for their expected average cost impacts under the carbon tax. Finally, the bill will make minor amendments, including clarifying in the child support legislation the authority for the practice of automated decision making using computer programs. I will address each of these measures in turn.

Excluded income—the bill will extend permanently the current income test exemption for the Western Australian Liberal government's country age pension fuel card and the cost of living rebate scheme. The Western Australian country age pension fuel card scheme provides an annual amount for eligible singles and couples combined living in country areas of Western Australia to purchase fuel and taxi fares. The Western Australian cost of living rebate scheme provides an annual payment for Western Australian seniors card holders. This amendment will make sure that people continue to benefit from the full value of the assistance provided by the Western Australian government under these arrangements, without incurring a reduction in their pension. The income test exemption is currently due to end on 30 June 2012. This measure will make these income exemptions operate indefinitely from 1 July 2012.

Adjustments to portability and other periods—this measure will tighten the rules for people who travel overseas while receiving certain income support payments and family payments. Under the proposed amendments, the length of time people can spend overseas while continuing to receive these payments will generally be reduced from 13 weeks to six weeks. It is important to note that the change will not apply to age pension and disability support pension recipients assessed as having a severe and permanent disability and no future work capacity, or to students studying overseas as part of an approved Australian course. The pension supplement will also be changed to allow a temporary absence for a continuous period not exceeding six weeks. Family tax benefit part A will still be paid for up to three years for a temporary absence from Australia, but it will be reduced to the base rate of payment after six weeks. These changes will take effect from 1 January 2013.

Change to the age of eligibility for recipients of family assistance payments—this bill will limit the age of eligibility for family tax benefit part A to young people aged under 18, or until the end of the calendar year for 18- and 19-year-olds who are completing secondary education or equivalent vocational education. Effectively, this change will see families with children aged between 19 and 24 years lose their family assistance payments—news which could not have come at a worse time for Australian families who are already struggling with increasing cost-of-living pressures and who are about to be hit by the world's greatest carbon tax, an issue which I will talk more about in a moment.

Non-budget measures—this bill also introduces the following non-budget amendments. Firstly, the bill corrects an inequity in the family tax benefit part A rate provisions in relation to child support. From 1 July 2012, if an individual is privately collecting child support and it is reasonable to collect the full amount, the maintenance income test for the family tax benefit part A will be based on the individual's child support entitlement, instead of restricting the rate of family tax benefit part A for a child to the base child rate when the individual privately collects less than the full child support entitlement. Secondly, this bill makes amendments that will allow a person's percentage of care for child support and family tax benefit purposes to be based on the actual care of the child immediately in special circumstances such as where there is evidence of violence or unusual behaviour.

Thirdly, the bill amends the clean energy low income supplement provisions to clarify the eligibility of a group of low-income families who may otherwise not be fully assisted for their expected average cost impacts under the carbon price. Finally, the bill also makes a number of minor amendments, including clarifying in the child support legislation the authority for the practice of automated decision making using computer programs.

Family tax benefit changes to age of eligibility—I will now return to this issue to which the bill makes some changes. The revelation earlier this morning in Senate estimates that approximately 53,000 families will be affected by this budget measure is timely, as is the revelation that 43,000 of teenagers whose families will lose their entitlement to family tax benefit part A will not be eligible for any other form of assistance. So, 43,000 teenagers will not be eligible for any other form of assistance as a result of the passage of this legislation. That is 53,000 families who are losing payments at a time when many are already struggling with increasing cost-of-living pressures and are about to be hit with the world's biggest carbon tax. It is bad news for families and it keeps getting worse.

On the government's own figures, there will be an immediate 10 per cent increase in electricity prices and a nine per cent increase in gas bills under the carbon tax, and this comes on top of the fact that, over the last four years, across Australia electricity prices have increased by 61 per cent and gas prices by 37 per cent. In addition to this, health costs have gone up by 20 per cent, education costs by 24 per cent and rent costs in excess of 20 per cent. All of this is a direct hit on Australian families. It is therefore disappointing that, at a time like this, the government has again chosen to cut family payments to try to balance the books rather than cut government spending. The families of Australia continue to bear the burden of this government's reckless spending at a time when many of them can ill afford it. Australian families deserve better than waste and mismanagement, and they deserve better than the world's biggest carbon tax.

This is a divided and dysfunctional government, a government which is at war with itself. And it is a government at war with the people that it should be representing. The Labor Party's 'just chuck it on the credit card' thinking, coupled with its desire to rip money out of family household budgets is hurting many of those already under pressure. The government's wasteful and reckless spending is hurting many families, and of course those cost increases that they have suffered over the last four years—and those which are projected over the coming years—are going to continue to have an adverse impact on many Australians. There is a better way. We on this side believe that we should be promoting hope, reward and opportunity for all Australians. We believe that government should help families, not hinder them. And we believe that integrity is paramount. Unlike Labor, we do not make promises that we cannot keep. Accordingly, I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the government for cutting assistance for families with children over the age of 18 at a time when Australian families are struggling with cost of living pressures and are about to face the world's biggest carbon tax."

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Menzies has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a bit rich being lectured by those opposite, who opposed the schoolkids bonus in the last week or so and who would actually claw back the family tax benefit assistance that families are getting, the pension assistance they are currently getting and also the assistance that they are getting in supplementary allowances. Those opposite would do all of those things if they were in the Treasury benches.

With respect to this legislation, the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (2012 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2012, unlike those opposite, we believe in supporting families. We trust families with their budgets. Those opposite think that families will spend whatever government assistance they are provided on the pokies, booze and those kinds of things. That is what they think of families. This particular legislation deals with a number of important reforms, some of which are savings measures such as the age/study rules for children, family assistance payments, portability of income support, family payments, the cost to the budget in relation to the income test exemption for WA fuel card holders and minor amendments to social security and family assistance legislation.

First, in relation to the Western Australian situation, the exemption is a form of assistance that is received by people in regional and rural areas. The exemption currently benefits about 13,000 recipients of the WA country fuel card and about 60,000 recipients of the cost-of-living rebate scheme who are in receipt of social security or Veterans' Affairs income support payments. The fuel card scheme is worth about $500 a year for singles or couples, and in 2012 the cost-of-living rebate scheme payment was $155.25 for singles and $232.90 for couples. The scheme would expire on 30 June. We are making sure it continues and is permanent. We are making sure that those people who are eligible will continue to receive it and that their eligibility will not be reduced as a result of payments which we are providing in the budget to help their household budgets. That is what we are doing in relation to this particular assistance.

The second measure deals with the portability of income support and family payments. We are tightening the rules for people who travel overseas while receiving income support and family payments. We are cutting that back from 1 January 2013, reducing the amount of time a person on income support or family assistance payments will be able to be overseas and continue to receive those payments to between six and 13 weeks. There are people who are exempt from this. It will not affect the age pension, which will continue to be paid indefinitely while overseas. However, the pension supplement will be reduced to the basic rate after six weeks rather than after 13 weeks, and some disability support pension recipients will not be affected if they are severely disabled and have no future work capacity. We think that is a reasonable measure. We understand that people have relatives and friends overseas but we believe that six weeks is an appropriate time.

The third measure I want to talk about relates to the change to age of eligibility for family tax benefit part A in relation to young people over the age of 18 years. This government has provided a tremendous amount of assistance to those types of people. For example, in my electorate alone there will be about 5,700 local teenagers in the next five years who will benefit from our additional $4,200 a year to family tax benefit families with teenagers of 16 to 19 years who are currently in full-time secondary school or equivalent vocational education. The family tax benefit scheme in this country is to assist low- and middle-income families with the cost of raising children when they are at school or at a school equivalent. When a child turns 18 years of age, we think it is reasonable that the family assistance stops when they leave school. If they leave school or the school equivalent, young people seeking financial support if they are studying or looking for work can always apply for youth allowance. There are stricter conditions, we acknowledge that, but we believe that learning or earning is the way to go for young people. We want to make sure they look for jobs or are engaged in study. This particular reform will save about $361 million across the forward estimates over four years.

There is a lot this government is doing. The member for Menzies was talking about how we are not helping families. Regrettably, he does not understand constituents in his electorate get equivalent payments, which I am going to outline, to my constituents in Blair. For example, there are 11,256 local part FTB A recipients eligible for an advance payment of $1,000 to meet unexpected family expenses. There are 6,864 local families benefiting from a 73 per cent increase to the childcare rebate. Blair has 14,000 local families getting extra money through family assistance payments from this government, which those opposite would tear away from those families. Typically a family in my electorate gets $529 through tax cuts and family assistance measures through our clean energy legislation and budget measures. There are 13,500 FTB A recipients who are getting an extra $110 per year per child and 11,600 FTB recipients receiving $69 extra a year from May this year.

I could keep going and going, but I will not bore the House. I gave those figures entirely to show just what sort of assistance we are providing for local families in my electorate. I dare say, for the 150 members of this place that is the kind of assistance being rolled out in their electorates. I wonder what those opposite are going to say to their constituents about those tax cuts, about the family tax benefits, about the assistance to the 20,000 pensioners in their electorates when they meet them at mobile offices, street stalls or in their electorate offices. Their electorates would be similar to mine. I cannot believe they would not have between 20,000 and 40,000 pensioners in their respective electorates getting assistance. I am amazed those opposite would come in here and have the hide to lecture us about what we are doing when they themselves are hell bent on ripping away and clawing back the assistance for families. We have made it clear that we have taken some tough measures in this budget, but they are measures which we believe are necessary.

The final thing I will say in relation to this particular legislation is from my experience when I was practising as a lawyer. Particularly in family law, a change in actual care of a child results in a change to child support. The changes we are making here would allow a person's percentage of child care support and for family tax benefit purposes to be based on actual care of the child immediately in special circumstances where there is evidence of violence or other unusual behaviour. That is always a vexed question. I can recall many occasions being at the Family Court or the Federal Magistrates Court and discussing the issues and implications of what we used to call custody or access arrangements and the implications for social security payments for child support and what impact the consequences of a consent order might have for the mother or father of the children. So acknowledging the actual care immediately in special circumstances is a good measure, it is a sensible measure and it is something that reflects reality. Regrettably, in too many cases involving family law there is violence. I commend the legislation to the House.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Disability Reform) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill introduces three measures from the 2012 budget, along with some minor amendments, to clarify existing government policies. One of the budget measures will provide a permanent exemption from the social security and veterans' entitlements income test for the Western Australian government's country age pension fuel card and cost-of-living rebate scheme. The Australian government previously exempted the value of the WA country fuel card and cost-of-living rebate scheme from the social security and veterans' income test for three years up to June 2012. This bill now makes that exemption permanent, so eligible people can have confidence in the long term that their income support payments will not be reduced because of benefits received through the Western Australian schemes.

The second budget measure will tighten the rules for people who travel overseas while receiving income support payments and family payments. This means that from 1 January 2013 the length of time that people on most income support payments will be able to be overseas and continue to receive payments will be reduced from 13 weeks to six weeks. Under this change, family tax benefit part A will continue to be paid for up to three years but will reduce to the base rate at six weeks rather than the 13 weeks of the current rules. Similarly, those payments such as special benefit and Newstart allowance that can be paid outside Australia only in limited and defined circumstances such as attending an acute family crisis will now only be payable for up to six weeks of the absence rather than for up to the 13 weeks under current rules.

The age pension will not be affected by this change, and nor will disability support pension recipients who have been assessed under new rules from 1 July 2012 as having a severe and permanent disability and no future work capacity. Portability periods may be extended in genuine exceptional circumstances such as when a person falls ill overseas and cannot return. Six weeks is a reasonable period of time for people to manage family or personal matters that take them overseas from time to time while having their absence funded by the Australian taxpayer.

As also announced in the budget, this bill limits family tax benefit part A to children aged under 18. Families with children aged 18 and 19 who are studying full time may continue to get the payments until the end of the calendar year in which they complete secondary education or equivalent vocational education. Youth allowance will be the primary form of assistance for eligible young adults aged 18 and over if they need financial support while they are studying or looking for work. This change builds on reforms over a number of years by this government to ensure that the family payment system is targeted to low- and middle-income families while their children are young, to help them finish school.

In 2011 this government delivered Australia's first Paid Parental Leave scheme, and on 1 January this year we delivered increases to family payments of up to $4,200 a year for families with teenagers in school. In this budget there is our new schoolkids bonus to help out with education costs and a boost to family tax benefit part A from 2013.

The bill also make some minor amendments to the social security law, the family assistance law and the child support legislation to clarify some existing government policies.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The question now is that this bill be read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.