Mr EOIN CAMERON(5.10 p.m.) —At the outset, I wish to say that I reject the amendment of the shadow minister, the member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin). Most members of the House would be sick of her holier than thou attitude about welfare. After her government's negligent mismanagement of the economy, she has very little right to lecture on spending. We have been forced to make some pretty tough decisions because of three words—Australian Labor Party, or should that be the `Democrat Labor Party'.

Listening to the shadow minister, you would think that money grew on trees. That is how Labor acted when in government—they dished out money like confetti. Who can forget the famous white board affair? Their irresponsibility for all those years is now the burden for this government. We did not create the mess but we are prepared to fix it up.

The opposition attack measures we are forced to introduce because of their flagrant abuse of the taxpayer. For the member for Jagajaga to come in here and preach from her pedestal against cutting spending is hypocrisy of the highest order. I pity her family, for if she operated the family budget as she wishes the government to operate, they would be riddled with debt. They would purchase their groceries on credit and rather than pay off the credit card, just keep racking up the debt. That is the way she wishes this government to operate—the way that the former government operated for so many years, to our detriment.

It is ironic that the shadow minister's heart bleeds for Australia's youth, yet she wishes to bequeath to them an ever-increasing burden of indebtedness. Her second reading amend ment about an assault on low income earners is just hollow rhetoric. We are targeting benefits to those who need them; we are ensuring that those who do not need benefits are not getting them. That is responsible economic management. `Responsibility' is a word that the member for Jagajaga does not have in her vocabulary.

The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Parenting and Other Measures) Bill 1997 implements a number of changes to social security measures which were announced in the 1997-98 budget. This government has made some progressive and very positive reforms in social security for which it deserves some great credit. Over the 13 years of the former Labor government, we saw develop a reliance on the welfare system. The former government fostered this reliance so that people were indebted to the government. The Labor Party wanted people to be reliant to forfeit their responsibility. They took away responsibilities and told recipients they had never-ending rights, hence this government inherited a massive debt and the process of reform was well and truly overdue.

The first schedule of this bill makes amendments to the parenting payment. A single parenting payment will be introduced and replace the sole parent pension and parenting allowance. These changes seek to bring simplification to these payments. The sole parent pension was originally introduced as the supporting mothers benefit in 1973. It changed to the sole parent pension in 1977. Payment was made to any person with a dependent child, including single fathers. This was essential to recognise the fact that there are male sole parents. At December 1996, there were 22,971 males receiving the sole parent pension, although that pales in comparison to the 327,000 females receiving the sole parent pension. These numbers give an indication of the number of people who will be affected by this change.

The parenting allowance also was introduced under another name. It was previously known as the home child-care allowance. The parenting allowance is paid to the parent of a couple at home caring for at least one dependent child of 15 or less. This allowance is means tested so that it is, quite rightly, targeted at those on lower incomes. At December 1996, there were some 664,414 recipients of the parenting allowance, of which 632,040 were female. This new payment takes the stigma off single parents. We all hear the innuendoes aimed at sole parent pensioners who are accused of having children to rort the system. Maybe some very small number do but that does not mean that all sole parent pensioners should be tarred with that same brush.

This payment acknowledges the parenting responsibilities of recipients and the added costs associated with having a child. Unfortunately, our society is faced with increasing family breakdown. As one would expect with increased divorce, there has been a rise in the number of recipients of the sole parent pension. In the 11 years since 1986, there has been a 38.8 per cent increase in the number of sole parent pensioners. This, of course, is hardly surprising.

The changes associated with this new payment will bring efficiency to the system by simplifying the administration to making one payment with one set of rules from two payments with two sets of rules. To bring the payment into line from the rules under which they previously operated, there will be changes to the rules applying particularly to those who previously received the sole parent pension. This new payment will also, with the simplification, make the administrative arrangements easier for people who move between lone parent status and partnered status.

It is important this payment is named to recognise the purpose for which it is provided. It is a parenting payment. It was silly that we had two payments—one to sole parents and one to partnered parents—provided for the same purpose. This bill gives recognition to the role of parents and takes the stigma away from the status of the relationship of the parent, which of course impacts on both the parent and the child.

Schedule 2 of this bill amends the qualification provisions for child disability allowance, which is the other matter I wanted to address in speaking on this legislation. In December 1990 there were 42,728 children who were the subject of claims for the child disability allowance. By December 1996 that figure stood at 103,000. During this period there has not been a correlating increase in the incidence of childhood disabilities in the community—with the exception of asthma and diabetes, although not at the same rate. The coalition's `Health through life' policy announced at the last election is a positive recognition of the benefits of preventive medicine. This will, over time, be for the benefit of children's health and will hopefully assist in containing costs.

The changes to the child disability allowance are part of a broader carers package. The changes to the CDA are necessary to ensure those deserving of payment are properly targeted. One aspect of these changes which I think is positive is that children of those who are not requiring the CDA under the new rules will be taught to provide for their needs. It will develop their sense of responsibility rather than be reliant on, if you like, the system. There are no doubt various reasons for the increase in the number of recipients of the child disability allowance. Therefore, rather than needing to meet the current criterion of requiring `substantially more care and attention', a child disability tool will be introduced which will measure the impact of a child's disability on their functional ability and communication, mobility, self-care and community living skills matched against development milestones. There will be a list of disabilities and conditions which will excuse children who have such a condition from being assessed against the child disability tool.

These amendments are fair and consistent to ensure that the child disability payment targets those whom it was originally intended to target and does not result in expenditure blow-outs from claimants where the disability being claimed for does not require substantially more care and attention than the care those who meet the criteria under the child disability tool would require. Given that there will be a reduced number of children classified as CDA children, those children who lose the CDA would be deprived of a health care card. Schedule 5 deals with amendments to the Health Insurance Act 1973 to ensure that those who would currently qualify for a health care card due to their status as a CDA child will maintain their eligibility for a health care card in view of the fact that the child will still require substantially more care than a child of the same age, whilst not qualifying for the CDA.

This legislation is essential legislation. Members opposite have cried their hearts out condemning us for seeking to save the Australian taxpayers' money. Their cheap and nasty attempts to buy votes today by opposing our savings measures would condemn our nation to Third World status in future years. Members opposite have lost the concept of responsibility and seek only to further their opportunism. Australia cannot afford the Australian Labor Party, and Australians will not appreciate the massive tax hikes Labor will be forced to introduce to maintain the inefficient system we inherited from them which they want to continue to burden our nation with. I commend the bill to the House.