Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Hotham for her very erudite contribution to this debate on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Fair and Sustainable Pensions) Bill 2015. She highlighted a range of issues around retirement incomes and referred to the obvious dichotomies between the superannuation system and the age pension.

I actually see this debate as being more about the Prime Minister and the government than about pensions. Where we are at today says a lot more about them than it does about anything else. We have had a series of issues emerge; we know that prior to the last election the Prime Minister made it very clear to the Australian people, on a number of occasions, 'There will be no cuts to pensions—I repeat, no cuts to pensions, no cuts, no change.'

Those who may be listening to this debate will well recall that when the Prime Minister was the Leader of the Opposition he embarked on what I believe to be a really scurrilous and dirty attack upon then Prime Minister Julia Gillard. He did this around the issue of the environment and the system which was put in place by Labor for making sure that big polluters paid. I well remember the current Prime Minister standing at a demonstration at the front of this place and behind him was a big sign that said 'Juliar'. He did not seem to be embarrassed by that—he did not seem to be embarrassed by that a bit—because what it did for him was confirm his depiction of the then Prime Minister. His years as opposition leader were marked by these sorts of really venomous attacks on the individuals who were the prime ministers at the time, either Kevin Rudd or Julia Gillard.

He attacked them on issues to do with honesty—he made great thing of it. Of course, it was picked up by the shock jocks around the country and all sorts of lunatics who adopted the same propositions. They canvassed it in the community, trying to depict the successive prime ministers and the Labor government as being dishonest. He came into this parliament having said to the Australian people that there would be no cuts and no changes to pensions. Yet, last year, he determined to take the razor to pensions in this country through his plan to cut indexation arrangements, which would have left every single pensioner in this country worse off. Over 10 years this cut would have amounted to $80 a week. He did not blanch about that at all; he was not embarrassed. He just stood up at the dispatch box and said, 'We're doing this because it is for the good of the nation, and the country needs it.' That is despite the fact that, immediately prior to the last election, he guaranteed Australian pensioners that there would be no cuts.

I take you back to his role as the Leader of the Opposition and that demonstration in front of Parliament House. Would it be fair for us to now put signs behind the Prime Minister which describe him as a liar? Would it be fair for us to attack him, because of his dishonesty, in the way in which he attacked the then Prime Minister? Would it be fair for us to attack him as he attacked the former Prime Minister, talking about her 'fraudulent behaviour' or the government's 'fraudulent behaviour'? I suspect that those listening would say: to be consistent, if he is arguing that dishonesty is a key issue around prime ministership, that we cannot have a person who is dishonest as our Prime Minister, that we cannot have someone who tells lies as our Prime Minister, why is he still in the position? That is precisely what he has done. He has done this without any embarrassment whatsoever. He just pouts his lips and struts around the place arrogantly as if it did not matter, as if he can say what he likes and do what he likes whenever he likes without fearing any retribution or without acknowledging any inconsistency or the fact that he is actually telling lies to the Australian people. 'By their actions we will know them.' And by the government's actions we know them.

As successive speakers have said in this debate, what they have done through the measures in this piece of legislation—as they tried to do last year—is attack the incomes of Australian pensioners. Last year's cut would have seen $23 billion ripped out of the pockets of Australian pensioners. That is not a problem for the Prime Minister—just another broken promise, just another lie. And we all know, including the pensioners around the country who might be listening to this debate, that that would push many pensioners into poverty and hardship.

I am really proud of being a member of the Labor Party. I have been a member for 40 years. I first got elected to this place in 1987 and not one day has passed when I have not been proud to be a member of the Australian Labor Party and fight for the good people of Australia, particularly those most in need. People work hard in this country understanding that, at the end of their working life, there will be income support, through a pension system, which they can rely on and plan for. Of course, it was Labor who made dramatic changes to the income levels of Australian pensioners. It was not the conservatives. It was not John Howard. And now we are seeing a very vicious attack by the current Prime Minister on the incomes of Australian pensioners and their families.

Last year, we fought and we won. We stopped the government from imposing the proposal to change the indexation arrangements for Australian pensioners—for now anyway. But I do not believe that any Australian who understands what the Prime Minister has been doing this space will ever trust him again. How can there be any basis for trust when he deliberately lies to the Australian people? In fact, it is almost as if—

See this speech in context