Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Hansard source

When introducing the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008 in the lower house, the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Ms Macklin, said that it involved $55 billion worth of support for families. We agree with that figure. But I would like to echo the sentiments of Mr Abbott, in the other place, who said that that $55 billion simply would not have been available without the strong financial and economic management of the former Howard government. In fact, this package would have been much bigger than $55 billion under a coalition government because the coalition would not have imposed a means test on payments like the baby bonus and family tax benefit part B. The Howard government knew how to take care of Australian families. It erased the burden of $96 billion worth of debt left by the Keating government. It provided hope, prosperity and optimism for the families of Australia. It built Australia’s economy and Australia had the lowest unemployment rate in over 30 years. It provided an environment of economic prosperity that allowed Australians to reap the benefits. The Labor Party are reinventing history, claiming credit for all that is right in the economy and denying any responsibility for that which is not right. Whereas the former government created an era of prosperity and optimism, Australian families are being let down by the government because they are facing bleak times.

This bill is very important because it does support families. In this age of increasing fragmentation and breakdown of social relationships, it is important that families do receive support and, in this particular instance, financial support. However, it is important to point out that the government did not inform the Australian people before the election that they intended to means test these payments. This is a critical issue. Thousands of families will be less well-off than they expected because of these means tests and because of a sneaky ploy by a desperate opposition to claim the government treasury bench.

This is not what Australians need, quite frankly, especially during this time of increased costs of living and soaring petrol and grocery prices, all of which the Rudd Labor government promised to bring down and all of which they have failed to do. But they have not stopped there. The government intend to continue to pursue means tests as a way of limiting support. How do we know that? The Sydney Morning Herald reported on 15 May that the Treasurer had said there were more plans in the pipeline to means-test other benefits. In fact, I stumbled upon this myself during Senate estimates hearings. I asked a departmental official what considerations had been taken with regard to the autism early intervention package. This departmental official said that they had considered means-testing autism programs but this had been scrapped because it would not have excluded enough families. What sort of heartless government would even consider means-testing a desperately needed early intervention autism package or program? The government are bent on means-testing as many programs as possible, taking money out of the pockets of Australian families and putting it into the Treasury coffers.

Let us turn to the substance of this bill. For the first time the income of primary income earners in partnered families will be tested and will need to be $150,000 or less for them to get access to family tax benefit part B. It maintains the current requirement that the income of the lowest income earner needs to be below $22,302 per annum for the person to qualify for some payment. The current accessibility is not altered in the bill. The income limit, though, of $150,000 will also be applied to sole parent families for the very first time. Minister Macklin has said that this means test will affect about 40,000 families—so 40,000 Australian families will be less well-off than they expected; so 40,000 families will lose some benefit that would have helped them to meet the high and rising costs of living, costs of living that Mr Rudd and the Labor Party had promised to address. Out of these 40,000 families, 12,700 are set to lose access to family tax benefit parts A and B. How do we know this? Not because the Rudd government have volunteered it, but because at the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration inquiry into this bill the government were forced to provide the information after the questioning of Senator Boswell.

If we go back a little bit, the Australian Labor Party, before it was in government, originally suggested that family tax benefit part B be subject to a means test set at $250,000, up to where it said ordinary Australians could be struggling. So how does this coincide with a means test at $150,000? Clearly, this government is changing its mind at every turn. Someone in the Prime Minister’s office wakes up and says, ‘Let’s just change the rules of the game.’ It is playing with people’s finances as if it is playing a game of Monopoly. Australians simply deserve better. It is the same story with the baby bonus. If you earn over $150,000 a year, you are no longer eligible for it. As my colleague Mr Abbott said:

Mothers do not get the baby bonus because they need it; mothers get the baby bonus because they deserve it.

Minister Macklin has said that 16,000 families will no longer receive the baby bonus due to this means test. Again, thousands of families will be less well-off than they expected, all because the Labor government was not honest with the Australian people before the election.

There are many problems with this particular measure. First among these is that the baby bonus means test lacks what has been described as a taper, which means that a single extra dollar of income can be the difference between receiving a needed baby bonus and receiving absolutely nothing. Evidence presented to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration shows that the government did not commission any modelling on tapering this particular means test. They did not look at the potential benefits for families. They just said, ‘No, let’s whack it in—$150,000—and be done with it.’ Mr Lachlan Harris probably woke up in a bad mood that day, and Australian families are much worse off.