McCormack, Michael, MP

Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (19:31): Listening to the member for Shortland, you would think that only Labor cared for families. She knows, as do the member for La Trobe, the member for Cunningham and even you, Member for Lyons, that that is just not so. Anybody in this place, as I am sure the member for Paterson, who is sitting at the table, would agree, cares a lot about families. Families are the core of Australian society. They are very much the backbone of Australian society. They make communities run. Families are so crucial to the betterment of our society, and may it long be the case that we as a parliament can do whatever we can to help and support families, and certainly at the time of the birth of a child. As I am sure the member for Shortland, being a mother and a grandmother—and no doubt a good mother and a very good grandmother—would know, the birth of a child is a time when costs are high. As a father of three myself, I know how that can be a strain on the family's budget. The member for Shortland talked of whole-of-life support, and, again, I find myself in furious agreement with her that we as a parliament should be doing everything that we can to support people from the cradle to, indeed, the grave; it is so important. She also talked of the Gonski report. I know that the Prime Minister made a big funding commitment in recent times to improving the nation's literacy for our schoolchildren. The Gonski report, which has been handed down, has good initiatives, but where is the funding for them? Where is the funding going forward for these initiatives, which, in some cases, are not going to take effect until 2019—six long years away? Where is the funding going to come from? Hopefully, it will not be coming from that side of politics, because hopefully that side of politics will not be governing; it will not be in charge of the treasury bench when these important reviews are due to take effect as legislation. I was slightly bemused by the reference to dental care for kids. We all know that there is nothing worse than a toothache, and certainly for children a toothache can have dire implications for their ability to converse with others, their ability to learn in school or their ability to mix with others in the playground and whatever. But it was that side of politics, the Labor side, which last year made it so hard with their new dental care arrangements, their new dental care policy, for people to access the public health care that is so needed for proper dental services. Oral health is crucial to our society. Whilst talking of whole-of-life support, I should note too that I do not think any side of politics, whether federal or state politics, pays enough attention to palliative care. As politicians, we should do more to ensure that there is palliative care, particularly in regional areas. This is absolutely crucial. I am sure the member for Shortland would agree with me on the need to be able to give people in their final stages of life the dignified and caring attention that they so desperately need. In my own electorate of Riverina, in Wagga Wagga, it is such an important issue at the moment. We certainly need to improve our palliative care services. We also need to provide prostate biopsies for men, because at the moment they are not available in Wagga Wagga Base Hospital. People have to go to either Young or Griffith to access those services, which in this day and age is simply not good enough. I speak on the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 because it is an important one in the life of this parliament. It is important to put on the record my feelings about what this bill will implement. Certainly a lot of people in my Riverina electorate would want me to talk about the schoolkids bonus as well as the family assistance payments. I know how many of them have actually made inquiries to my office about these very important things. This bill implements the government's changes to the baby bonus announced in the 2012 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook and also makes amendments to family assistance and social security payments. As of 1 July 2013, the amount of the baby bonus for the second and subsequent children will be reduced to $3,000. This change will be reapplied regardless of whether the child is born into the family, adopted by the family or is entrusted into the family's care within 26 weeks of the child's birth. The baby bonus will continue to be paid for a family's first child, and for each child who comes into the family in a multiple birth, adoption or entrustment to care, at a rate of $5,000. This bill will also make amendments to ensure that families can continue to receive the family tax benefit until the end of the calendar year in which the child finishes secondary study or its equivalent. Additionally, the qualification period for the double orphan pension is being extended so it corresponds with eligibility for the family tax benefit. As the family assistance act currently stands, under section 22B(3) a child continues to be a senior secondary schoolchild until 31 December if the day the child completes the final year of secondary school, or equivalent level education, is in December of that calendar year. If the day of completion is before December then the child continues to be a senior secondary schoolchild for a period of 28 days after completion. This allows for continued eligibility for the family tax benefit until the end of the calendar year for a child who completes secondary school in December, or for a period of 28 days if the child completes school before December. This bill will amend the family assistance act so that eligibility for the family tax benefit will continue until the end of the calendar year for a child who completes secondary school in either November or December of that year. The amendment confirms access to the family tax benefit until the end of the calendar year for students who complete secondary study in the usual way, normally by sitting final examinations. The amendments also ensure continued family tax benefit eligibility for a child for a period of 28 days after completion if the child completes secondary school before November. A recent judgement of the Federal Court interpreted 'entrustment to care' differently to the current family assistance legislation, which provides in general that the baby bonus is payable within 52 weeks after a child is born or entrusted to an individual's care. The existing policy states that the baby bonus is payable at around the time of the child's entry into a family, when the family is likely to incur set-up costs. The judgement found that the baby bonus may be paid at some time after a child enters a person's care, when a formal process of adoption begins. This bill will make amendments to clarify the meaning of 'entrustment to care' to reflect the intended policy so the baby bonus is only paid around the time the child first enters a person's care. The definition of a 'young person' in section 5(1) will be also be amended to extend the double orphan pension qualification period of students completing study by aligning it with the family tax benefit eligibility period. Amendments will be made to the schoolkids bonus to ensure that students under 16 years of age who have already begun primary or secondary school but who are unable to participate for a period due to special circumstances are still able to receive the schoolkids bonus. Minor amendments have also been made to clarify the periods within which customers need to notify that they are engaging in eligible study. Minor changes are to be made to the clean energy supplement under the family assistance law to ensure that, if individuals end their choice to receive the supplement on a quarterly basis and start to be paid on a fortnightly basis instead, they can be paid their arrears immediately instead of having to wait until the end of the quarter. A further amendment removes an anomaly which prevents a member of a couple being entitled to a clean energy advance top-up in certain situations. Amendments similar to the one I have just mentioned will also be made to the social security law and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to clarify that customers who decide to end payment on a quarterly basis of the clean energy supplement, pension supplement or seniors supplement are not required to wait until the end of the quarter to be in arrears. Whilst talking of the Veterans' Entitlements Act, I ask the government: if it is this easy to change this particular legislation, why can't it also be altered to give veterans fair and just superannuation payments? It just remains unfathomable. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. DGH Adams ): Order! The honourable member will come back to the bill. Mr McCORMACK: Sure. Mr Billson: Good point, though. Mr McCORMACK: But it is a good point. While I certainly do not want to talk against your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, which I fully adhere to, the member for Shortland talked of whole-of-life support, and certainly our veterans have given this country every bit of their whole-of-life support, and they do deserve—with all due respect to you, Mr Deputy Speaker—to be looked after in their retirement because they lay their lives on the line for our country. To get back to the legislation, which I know you would like me to do, Mr Deputy Speaker, whilst these are minor and technical amendments in the legislation before the House, they will ensure that people receive the correct amount of quarterly payment and receive the payments at the correct time. The coalition introduced the baby bonus in 2002 for the purpose of raising Australia's declining fertility rate. We heard the shadow minister talking about how important that was. And I can recall that the former Treasurer, Peter Costello, knew how important it was to arrest that slump in the nation's fertility rate, and obviously to increase it above the necessary two, to make sure that the Australian population grew. That is obviously very important, because as the population ages so does the reliance grow on younger people to work longer and harder to make sure that we pay the necessary pensions for retirees as well as for people who are receiving welfare. Labor has repeatedly—I repeat: repeatedly—slashed funding for the baby bonus in a desperate attempt to find savings. And this is a desperate government. The Treasurer needs to balance the books. We know he is not going to produce the first surplus since 1989 under Labor. Obviously, the coalition invariably produces surpluses, but Labor's last surplus—as we heard the shadow Treasurer, the member for North Sydney, speaking of in the discussion of the matter of public importance today—was in 1989, and obviously Labor needs to begin to correct that, and this is one way that it is going to attempt to do it. In the 2009-10 budget, Labor paused the indexation of the upper income limit of the baby bonus, fixing the income threshold at $75,000. Then, in the 2011-12 mid-year financial and economic update, Labor again paused indexation of the baby bonus payment until 2014-15 and reduced the rate of payment from $5,437 to $5,000 per child. Now here Labor is again, lowering the baby bonus for second children and any additional after that from $5,000 to $3,000. Why is Labor so intent on limiting choices for mothers, particularly those who wish to stay at home to raise their children? We should be encouraging, in every instance, those wonderful, brave, stay-at-home mums. All mums are great. We know that. And I am sure everybody in this parliament knows it. But those stay-at-home mums need to be helped and helped in every which way we can. Stakeholder groups who advocate for stay-at-home mothers have continually raised concerns about the inequality between paid parental leave and the baby bonus. This current move by the Labor government does nothing to address those concerns. Labor will try to argue that this is not a simple money-saving measure, but we know that it is. The facts show these baby bonus changes are expected to provide savings of $505.9 million to half a billion dollars over the four years from 2012-13 to 2015-16. This cut to the baby bonus—and that is what it is; it is a cruel cut—will place further financial burdens on Australian families already struggling with the day-to-day rising costs of living, higher cost of groceries, higher cost of petrol and a carbon tax that the Prime Minister said that she would not introduce under a government she led. They are not helped by hoards of asylum seekers and by illegal refugees arriving on our shores. We are paying upwards of $170,000 per illegal boat person arrival. That is all having an effect on the ability of the government to be able to give families a fair go, because at the moment they are not getting a fair go from this government. The government claims this decrease of $2,000 reflects that families do not generally face the same upfront costs for a second child or a later child as they do for their first. Whilst that is correct to some extent, this is a blow to families. It is an unnecessary and cruel blow. It is about time this government listened to families and their cries for assistance, rather than delivering them blow after blow.