Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Hansard source

I congratulate the member for Mitchell on a splendid maiden speech which managed to combine a robust expression of political philosophy and a hymn of praise to his splendid electorate. I cannot help but recall Alex Hawke’s statement of some years ago that ‘you don’t join the Liberal Party to be left wing’. It is good to see that he has not lost his gift for pithy expression in the translation to this House.

The bill that we are now debating, the Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Allowances) Bill 2008, is an important but uncontroversial bill. It implements an election commitment of the former government, which in a slightly modified form was adopted by the former opposition as part of its ‘me too’ policy. The bill in question increases the utilities allowance for pensioners to $500 a year. It extends the utilities allowance to other beneficiaries of pensionable age and extends it further to disability support pensioners and people on carers payments of any age. It also increases the seniors concession allowance to $500 a person and it increases the telephone allowance for pensioners, carers and disability support pensioners with an internet connection. These are laudable objectives. These are worthwhile benefits. They will help some three million people at a cost of some $4 billion over the forward estimates period. So, obviously, the opposition supports these measures and I congratulate the government for moving so swiftly to bring these benefits to people who need them.

I will make a few observations. We can only afford to pay these increased allowances because our economy is strong and has generated a very strong revenue base. I think the former government deserves considerable credit for that. The fact that the former opposition repeatedly stated before the election that there was not a sliver of difference between the then government and the then opposition on economic policy is perhaps the finest tribute there can be to the economic work of the former government and, in particular, the good work of the member for Higgins. I hope that the new government does nothing to jeopardise that economy and to put at risk the revenue base which makes these kinds of payments affordable.

I should also point out that these latest improvements adopted from the policy of the former government are in keeping with the former government’s record of generosity towards pensioners. I remind the House that it was the former government that increased pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. It was also the former government which shared the benefits of our prosperity more equally than has perhaps ever been the case in a period of sustained economic boom. It is often said by members opposite that under the former government the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. This was not the case: the rich got richer—sure—but the poor got considerably richer too. In fact, work by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, based here in Canberra, shows basically that the top and the bottom deciles of income in our society—the millionaires and the merchant bankers on the one hand and the pensioners on the other hand—all went up by approximately the same high percentage over the life of the Howard government. Those whose positions improved most were low- and middle-income earners with children, which is as it should be under a government which wants to do the right thing by the battlers of our country.

I shall conclude by raising two queries for the new government. I note that this particular election commitment was accompanied by an additional commitment to provide pensioners and other beneficiaries with reciprocal concession entitlements in every state. In other words, if I have a concession entitlement as a pensioner in New South Wales and I find myself on a bus in Melbourne, I should get the same discount, the same benefit, as a pensioner there. I note that the former government was heavily criticised for making a similar commitment some years ago but being unable to negotiate this with the states. While I know that the new government made a $50 million election commitment to fund this national pensioner concession entitlement, I do not underestimate for a second the difficulty of negotiating with the states. I think it would assist the House—and I am sure it would interest pensioners and other beneficiaries around the country—if members opposite, in debating this bill, could let us know what the state is of the new government’s negotiations with the states to try to bring about this laudable objective.

The final point I make is that in estimates yesterday the relevant minister, Senator Sherry, neither confirmed nor denied a question about whether the government was planning, as part of the budget process and the cuts which the minister for revenue is vociferously promising us, to limit pensioner entitlements to the utilities allowance and to the seniors concession allowance. I think it would put to rest the potential anxieties of the three million people who stand to benefit from the bill we are now debating if the government was able to assure them that it was not giving now only to take away in the budget. I think it was a remarkable answer from Senator Sherry to simply say on something as important as this, ‘I cannot confirm or deny the matter raised.’ Surely it would not have hurt him or the government to say there are absolutely no plans to cut, reduce or in any way limit these particular benefits, and I call on members opposite to supply those words, the words that Senator Sherry was unable to supply in estimates yesterday.

See this speech in context