Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Hansard source

ACOSS. The Australian Council of Social Service brought to me a proposal to ensure we would have a fair and sustainable pension by rebalancing the assets test for the pension. And do know what they suggested? They suggested that we should bring down the total level of assets that people can have in order to maintain access to a part-pension. They said: 'It is not right to be providing government welfare payments to people on a much higher level of assets; we should be focusing the pension on those with lower levels of assets.' We thought this was a fairly useful contribution to the debate—and there were others at the time who had similar views. Certainly the Council on the Ageing has been a consistent participant in this debate, and National Seniors Australia provided very strong support in the discussions we have had with them.

There will be those who will stay with the policy and there will be those who walk away. But what we will never walk away from is the importance of having a fairer and more sustainable pension. So we put forward a measure which, frankly, was not as harsh as the measure that was put to us by ACOSS; it was a more moderate proposal—which they would acknowledge. The measure was to change the taper rate and the assets threshold, the assets free area, and the maximum level of assets to rebalance the pension in favour of those on lower assets. That reversed the changes to the taper rates on the pension that existed back in 2007. The taper rates that we currently have, at $1.50 rather than $3, have only been there since 2007.

And do you know who voted against the changes back in 2007? It was the Greens. The Greens, back in 2007, did not agree with the changes in those taper rates. The Greens, through their agreement with the government last night, have indicated that they are simply going to remain consistent with the position that they held in 2007. I do not agree with the Greens very often—and there are still many, many, many areas where we are in wild disagreement—but I will say one thing about the Greens that I cannot say about those opposite on any measure, and that is that the Greens are at least consistent. In their appalling views about border protection policy they were at least consistent. The Labor Party flipped and flopped and went all over the place—and they flip and flop to this day. But the Greens were at least consistent—and I consistently disagreed with them. On this measure, the Greens have simply acted in accordance with the convictions that they held back in 2007.

What has changed for the government since 2007 in changing these measures? What has changed is this. When the greatest Treasurer we ever had, Peter Costello—

Opposition members interjecting—

The member for Lilley never troubled his predecessor in terms of a claim to that title! When Peter Costello made these changes, what was different then from now? There was a $20 billion surplus and $40 billion in the bank. Where did that go? We saw six years of the killing season on the budget from those opposite—and that strength in our fiscal position is gone. There are consequences of bad fiscal management, and that means you have to make savings and you have to make decisions about the sustainability of welfare measures, and that is what this does. So we have reversed those measures back from 2007 and we have put in place a more sustainable pension.

But those opposite stand here with their usual playing of politics. They are seeking to play the politics of motions on the pension. But I challenge each one of their speakers: if you are really serious about their strong stand on the pension, come to this dispatch box and say you will reverse this measure if you win the next election. I will tell you what the cost is: it is $2.4 billion. Unless you can say that, it is a simple piece of paper which means absolutely nothing. But we know you cannot trust Bill Shorten, because that is what Mark Arbib told us, and he should know. Those opposite, if they have a serious position on this issue, will come to the dispatch box and say that they are going to reverse this measure if it is passed. They will not say it.

See this speech in context