Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Budgets are about choices. They are about getting the policy settings right to ensure future prosperity, but they must also ensure that nobody is left behind in the process. This Liberal government has made its choices. With this budget the Prime Minister has chosen to cut hard but spend big. He has decided that what he said before the election should not matter after it. He has decided that the biggest burden should fall on low- and middle-income earners. He has decided the sick, the elderly, the young and the unemployed should suffer more.

There are 26,800 in the electorate of Charlton who receive a pension of some sort. Each of them is a beneficiary of this country is proud history of social support for the aged and those in need. It was at the turn of the last century, in 1909, that means tested, flat rate pensions were first paid to men from the age of 65 and women from the age of 60. Since then, Australian governments of all persuasions have supported payments to pensioners, until now. Before the election Tony Abbott promised he would not cut the pension. We now know this to be false. For the pensioners in Charlton and across the country there will be a cut to the pension and life will become a lot harder.

The budget cuts $1.3 billion from the National Partnership Agreement on Certain Concessions for Pensioner Concession Card and Seniors Card Holders. This money paid to states and territories supports discounts for pensioners, Commonwealth seniors and health care card holders on their rates; water, sewerage and power bills; car registration; and public transport discounts. It remains to be seen how each state will make up this funding shortfall, though, with a budget looming within weeks, both the Premier and Treasurer of New South Wales have made clear their thoughts on Tony Abbott's hit to their budget bottom line. Andrew Constance, the man who now has to decide whether New South Wales government will cut other services to continue these concessions or see pensioners go without, has called this move 'cruel and callous', and I agree with Treasurer Constance.

For the past 20 years the age, disability and carer pensions have been indexed in line with male average weekly earnings. This helps the pensions keep pace with the true cost of living for pensioners. The budget outlines a change to the indexation rates to pensions from average weekly earnings to the consumer price index. These changes will mean that pensioners will generally receive less of an increase in their pensions in March and September. If this indexation had been in place for the last four years, a single pensioner on the maximum rate would be around $1,500 a year worse off than they are today. This effectively would have wiped out the $30 pension increase applied by Prime Minister Rudd and Minister Macklin. Mr Abbott will have you believe that this is not a cut, but it is. The reality is that 26,800 people in Charlton will have their cost of living go up but their pension will not rise in line with it. There are 26,800 people in Charlton who will have less money each week because of these changes. No matter which way you look at it, that is a cut.

The action from pensioners has been quite marked. The Prime Minister, the Treasurer and this coalition government need to know that the choices they have made in this budget will hurt people—every community will suffer. But I do not ask the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Liberal Party to simply take my word for it; I ask that they listen to the stories of pensioners in my electorate who are genuinely fearful of how these measures will hurt them.

Judith is 64 years of age. About 30 years ago she fell down 28 concrete stairs, which has left her with damage to her spine, knees and hips. She suffers debilitating arthritis and she has developed a disease on her spine which means she cannot walk unassisted. She relies on wheelchairs and crutches for mobility. Judith has also suffered a heart attack and stroke and is prone to bouts of vertigo. It takes a lot of medical attention and advice to manage these conditions. At least once a week Judy visits the GP superclinic in Morrisette to see her GP, physio or specialist doctor or to use the hydrotherapy pool there. These visits are currently bulk-billed. They will no longer be free of charge and instead she will face the GP tax. In addition, her medication costs have gone up. With her chronic conditions it is not surprising that she reached the PBS safety net threshold last year. As a disability pensioner, Judith lives on a fixed income and manages from week to week. She boards with an elderly lady who also lives on the pension and together they share household expenses to make ends meet. Judy is a generous lady. The pride in her voice was evident as she described to me her regular donations to charities because, she says, 'There are people out there worse off than me.' However, Judith is fearful that these donations will be the first thing to go as she is forced to pay more for her medical and health care costs. She will have to pay more to see her doctor, she will have to pay more for medication. She will have her pension payments eroded at a time when her cost of living is going up. I asked Judith what she thought of these changes and how she felt about the Prime Minister's decision to make her life harder. She told me: 'It feels money hungry. If it were for a genuine need, then I wouldn't mind. But it's not. Hospitals will suffer. People around here will suffer. Please, Prime Minister, don't do this. A lot of people are finding it hard. Water rates, electricity, land rates., everything is going up. We can't afford any more.'

I heard a similar story from Lorna, who will be 70 next year and receives the age pension. She rang my office after hearing of the measures in the budget because she wanted me to know how angry she was. She is angry because it will make life harder for her, her family and for those who live in her community. Lorna's adult son has battled severe mental illness for many years. It has taken a lot of work but together with his doctors and specialists, Lorna's son is now, thankfully, stabilised and is living life to the full. His only source of income is the disability support pension, which goes some way to covering is essential living expenses. His medication costs add up to around $70 a month, and Lorna helps him make ends meet by paying around $30 of this cost each month. He has regular blood tests and visits his psychiatrist on a monthly basis for ongoing recovery and prescriptions. Of course, it is vital that he stays well.

But this budget will ask both Lorna and her son to pay more—to see the doctor, for medication, for blood tests and X-rays, and for petrol. With indexation changes to both of their payments, as well as the cut to support for pensioner concessions, Lorna and her son will be paying more with less income. Lorna told me this makes her feel sick. She said, 'The Prime Minister and Treasurer may say that a GP payment is not much or that the medicines will only go up by 80c each. It might only mean a cup of coffee to them, but for me it could mean I can't afford my next meal. Only the rich will be able to afford proper health care; pensioners and people with a chronic illness will not be able to afford it. The heavy lifting is being done by pensioners, the sick, the unemployed and low-income earners. I don't understand why the Prime Minister is doing this. He's got no compassion.'

Besides changing the indexation, which means a real cut to pensions over time, and cutting funding to pensioner concessions, the government is also playing with the deeming thresholds used in the pension asset test. These will also be lowered. For singles, higher deeming rates will apply to income over $30,000—down from the current threshold of $46,600. For couples, higher deeming rates will apply to income over $45,000—down from the current threshold of $77,400. This will mean a real impact on those receiving a part pension.

The changes will also affect self-funded retirees in receipt of the seniors healthcare card. Most notably, the seniors supplement will be abolished, which is a loss of $876.20 per year for singles and $1,320.80 per year for couples. This will have a real impact on those self-funded retirees who need this money for their family budget.

Finally, the budget posits that people have to work harder for longer. Increasing the age pension to 70 will mean Australia has the highest pension age across the OECD. My brother is a concreter, and he and I have serious doubts about whether he will be able to remain in the workforce until the age of 70. My wife is a nurse. It is a white collar profession that generally requires a university degree, but it is a job that is very physically intense. Again, I have doubts about whether she will make it to 70 in the workforce in her current job. It will be a real tragedy if people who have worked their whole lives have to work harder and longer because of this callous and cruel government.

These are all results of the budget. These are all choices made by this coalition government. They have chosen to make life harder for pensioners in Charlton and across the country. They have chosen to change the rules for seniors and self-funded retirees in Charlton and across the country. They have chosen to favour the wealthy and punish ordinary workers and the vulnerable. Budgets are about choices—but so are elections. The people of Charlton made the choice at the last election to be represented by me and the Australian Labor Party. They made this choice based on the values that I, and Labor, subscribe to—fairness, equality and social justice. There is nothing fair or just about this budget, and Labor and I will fight against this unjust budget.

See this speech in context