Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

This bill is a classic example of twisted priorities from this government. On its own, this bill seems fair and reasonable. But, in the context of the budget and the number of cuts hitting people in our community, this is not a fair bill and these are not fair measures. At the same time that the government is introducing measures in this bill, they are cutting the aged pension. The government is cutting disability support pensions, carers' pensions and senior supplements. The government is also planning to cut the schoolkids bonus, income support bonuses and low-income superannuation contributions. The list of cuts in this budget, which are justified by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister because of a 'budget emergency', goes on and on.

It cannot be that there is a budget emergency if at the same time increasing support for those who are in the higher income brackets, whether they be people working or people who are retired. This proposal will see a $100 million increase in the eligibility for seniors health care for the people towards the top end of incomes in our community. I will be honest with you: this issue was debated in my electorate during the election. It was debated and I was one of the people who said, 'Look, if there needs to be government support, it should be targeted support.' Here I am, a marginal MP, willing to stand up and speak to my party's position here in this House, knowing that there will be some people in my community disappointed. In the other debates that we have had in this House, very few marginal seat MPs from the other side have been willing to stand up and put their name to their party's position and their government's decision to make massive cuts that hurt people in their electorates. Being elected is about being a representative, standing up and being willing to put your name to a decision that your party makes.

I note that a number of those marginal seat MPs are willing to speak on this bill. They will speak on this bill, but they would not speak on the bill yesterday which saw an increase to prescriptions that people need every day. We all know that it is our oldest seniors who have the most prescriptions, yet none of those marginal seat MPs were willing to stand up yesterday and put their name to the government's work. This government is all about looking after the higher income earners in our community whilst cutting support to the most vulnerable. That is the core problem with this measure. It is rewarding the few by taking from others—and taking from those most in need.

The government likes to say that we, Labor, use the rhetoric of class politics—but this budget is all about class politics. It is about pushing the most vulnerable further into poverty. It is not about supporting them and giving them the same opportunities in life; it is about pushing them further into poverty whilst at the same time rewarding those towards the top end. If the government were serious about there being a budget emergency, nobody would be safe—everybody would be having their concessions cut. There would be no increases to concessions. But what we have seen from this government is exactly that—them prioritising looking after the top end of town.

It is not just this bill; it is also the Paid Parental Leave scheme. Once again, it will be our highest income earners who will have their wages topped up by this government. It is not support for our lowest income earners, it is not support for our single parents who most need it; it is government support—taxpayer support—for our highest income earners. As a woman, as someone who is proud to be part of the Labor Women's Caucus—proud that I am part of a movement which saw the first paid parental leave scheme introduced in this country—I support paid parental leave. But I do not support a system that tops up the pay of those at the top end of the pay scale—which could include me or my sisters—at the expense of seniors, at the expense of pensioners or at the expense of young people who might be looking for a job. Those are the twisted priorities of this government. Cutting support for the most vulnerable Australians whilst proceeding with these sorts of measures is an example of just how twisted the government's priorities are.

Let us talk a bit about those twisted priorities. The PM, prior to the election, promised that there would be no changes to pensions—but we have now seen changes introduced. The Prime Minister is increasing the qualification age for the age pension to 70 by the year 2035. Maybe that is after he has retired, but it will definitely affect young people—the young people he did not tell before the election he would be kicking off Newstart for six months if they found themselves without work. The Prime Minister also broke a promise when he said he would not make life harder for Australian pensioners. He said that, yet we have heard all about the different cuts, the deep cuts, to pensions in the government's budget. One example is the simple issue of how the pension increases over time, how it is indexed. Currently the age pension is indexed in line with male total average weekly earnings, the CPI or the pensioner cost-of-living index—we take the highest of those three. The government's proposal is to index it in line with movements in the CPI only, which usually has the lowest increase of the three. That is the difference between Labor in government and the Liberals in government when it comes to supporting our pensioners.

Seniors and pensioners will also be hurt by the GP tax the government plan to introduce. Seven dollars may not seem like a lot to members of the government, but it is a lot to pensioners. It is a lot to people who need to seek medical help. This tax will hit Australian families, costing them $3.5 billion—straight out of their pockets. That is the core of the problem. That is another example of twisted priorities. It is also lazy policy, because it will ultimately lead to increased healthcare costs and more pressure on hospitals. We have heard GP after GP speak about how the GP co-payment will discourage those most in need of help from seeking it, from presenting to their GPs. In my electorate alone, doctors from Castlemaine, Woodend and Bendigo have all spoken out publicly about how they believe the $7 GP co-payment will stop sick people, vulnerable people and older people from seeking medical help when they need it—and how this will lead to more severe health problems and end up with them presenting at emergency, which is the last thing we want.

The increased co-payments under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme will also hurt pensioners and seniors. The government's proposal is that people will be asked to pay an extra $5 per medication. Already we have pharmacists saying that people are coming to them with four or five scripts from their doctor and asking them, 'Which ones should I fill?' This is an issue in some of the poorer areas of my electorate. The pharmacists have older people coming in and saying, 'I cannot afford all these medications; can you tell me which ones I absolutely have to have?' This problem is only going to get worse if this proposal, which has already passed the House, is passed by the Senate. It is also another broken promise and another clear example of how the Prime Minister's budget is full of twisted priorities.

The reason we want people to take their medication, the reason we encourage them to take the medication that has been prescribed for them by their doctor, is that it is simply good preventative health care. I have spoken to seniors who are outraged about this budget. Some of them have three or four medications that they take every day—to keep their blood pressure low or to keep their diabetes in check. We want to keep these seniors out of the emergency departments, so we want to encourage them to take their prescribed medications. But this hit, this broken promise, this increase in what they have to contribute towards their medication, will now put that idea at risk.

Here are some other things people from my electorate have said about this budget and its twisted priorities. Gregory said:

The inequality of the Abbott and Hockey budget will destroy the fair go aspect of our society. I do not want us to become a small America with its inherent winner takes all attitude.

These are not my words but the words of people in my electorate, speaking out against the twisted priorities in this budget. The words of William:

I want my kids to grow up in fair society. Abbott is attacking the egalitarianism that makes Australia such a great place to live. I have lived in the US and the neo-con dream is an inescapable nightmare for many disadvantaged and minority groups. Inequality and injustice is entrenched. I do not want that here.

The words of Tammy:

This is not a fair budget to the middle and lower classes!! Just taking from the poor yet again, disgusting!

The words of Jessica:

I'm a mum of two and together with my husband, we barely make up $90k per year. It sounds like a lot but it's barely enough some weeks to scrape by. Cutting funding to helpful social programs will hurt us and many other families I know in my area.

The words of Claire:

Because this Budget attacks the most vulnerable in our community rather than supporting them, I sign this petition.

The words of Gordon:

This budget seems to discriminate against the vulnerable. It aims to achieve financial balance without considering other consequences on struggling community members now and in the future.

The words of Garry:

The whole budget emergency claim is a fallacy. Sure there are steps that need to be taken over the next maybe 5 to 10 years.

But ripping money out of those in the community that can least afford it as well as being extremely cruel to many isn't the way to go.

At the same time the contradiction of introducing an extravagant parental leave scheme is very distasteful.

The changes that are contemplated affect poorer citizens permanently. They are nasty.

They are nasty and they attack those most in need. The words of Tara:

Because I'm a mum of 2 children and try my hardest to support my family the best I can adding more cost to medicines and doctors visits will only cause harder times and higher risks of letting my kids miss out on food or clothes just cause we may need medical assistance medication and being asthmatics these things are important to keep as cheap or free as possible. I want to make sure that my kids can live a good life, and I expect my government to help.

The words of Damien:

This budget, in addition to targeting the less well off, those with health problems, those with no job and many similar disadvantaged people, is putting Australia's economic prosperity at risk. If they do not support those most in need our economy will stall.

That is because we have seen this happen overseas. Austerity has been shown to cause more harm than good elsewhere: Australia should not follow a failed path.

Time to admit you're wrong and abandon your mean, tricky and cruel budget measures.

I completely agree with the words of these people in my electorate who are speaking out about the twisted priorities in this budget.

This measure will be popular with some, but not when they realise it is coming at the cost of their neighbours. There is one thing I know about the people of Bendigo and the people of regional Australia—it is that they stand up for one another. They care for their neighbours and the people in their community.

Our self-funded retirees will not be happy to know that they are receiving this increase at the expense of their neighbours, at the expense of those who are doing it tougher. This measure will over time result in more people accessing the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card at the higher end. It is another example of how this government is governing for their own and not for those most in need. It is another example of how the government is making sure that their mates in big business are protected, and that their interests are being put ahead of the interests of everyone else, including those in my electorate and those in regional areas.

See this speech in context