Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, given you have been in the chair for as long as you have, I am sure you want to be refreshed before question time. I will speak on the contingency motion put by the Minister for Social Services about an hour and a half ago in order to make sure that everyone has the chance to get their break before question time—except, of course, the poor old Leader of the House. I will speak to give you the chance to have lunch, a drink or any other kind of refreshment stop that you desire.

The Minister for Social Services has moved a contingency motion, a suspension of standing orders, in order to complete all stages of this bill—the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Fair and Sustainable Pensions) Bill 2015. He has been prosecuting the case for this very important budgetary and economic reform for some time. As the House knows, as the members of the public know and as the press gallery knows, he achieved a breakthrough deal with the Australian Greens in the Senate to pass these reforms. These reforms are vital to making a sustainable pension in Australia. They are supported by the Australian public. They will ensure that those people who should have access to a part pension or a full pension get that access and those who can exist into the future with the resources they already have, without government support, will not.

The specific changes are that the assets test will be changed for the Australian age pension to ensure that those people who have assets of over $1million, not including their family home, can no longer access a part pension. I come from an electorate in Adelaide's eastern and north-eastern suburbs where there is a very high proportion of part pensioners and self-funded retirees. I can tell the House that I have had virtually no criticism at all in my electorate for this decision from part pensioners who are also self-funded retirees and who will lose that part pension. I think they recognise that $1 million worth of assets, not including their family home, is a substantial resource for them. They can earn the income from those assets that mean they do not have to rely on government support. On the other hand, because of this reform, we can make the age pension sustainable. Those people on lower incomes who get a full pension, those people who exist on the full pension, will get an extra $30 a fortnight in their pension because of this government's changes. That is the effect of the Minister for Social Services extremely important reform.

It is passing strange that the Labor Party would oppose this reform. The Labor Party want to keep people with assets of over $1 million, not including their family home, getting a part pension. They want to stop the poorest of pensioners from getting a $30-a-fortnight increase in their pension. That is the effect of the Labor Party's decision in blocking this legislation.

The debate that we are having now is all about allowing the House to continue through the stages of this debate to make sure that the pension reform bills are passed today and can be sent into the Senate today to be dealt with next week. What I find absolutely remarkable is that the Labor Party have allowed the Greens to steal the clothes of economic rectitude, fiscal rectitude. What the Labor Party are saying is that they are prepared to allow the Greens to become a political party in the Senate and represented here by the member for Melbourne to be more fiscally responsible than the Labor Party. I welcome the Australian Greens' move to the economically sensible position that they have adopted. It is a shame on the Labor Party that they would be so lacking in any principles of fiscal balance and rectitude that they would allow the Greens to do that.

The actual amendments being moved by the Minister for Social Services today would split the bill in order to take the assets test into a separate bill from the other reforms that have been proposed in the budget. This will allow the Senate to deal with that change cleanly next week, when the government and the Greens together ensure that this reform passes both houses of parliament. I see the Leader of the Opposition joins us in the House. I would implore him to see reason on pension reform—to see reason if only for his own political survival—because it is inimical to the Labor Party's interests to allow the Greens to be economically more responsible than the Labor Party. I have to say as a Liberal that I would prefer it if the Labor Party were more fiscally responsible than the Greens. Madam Speaker, on that note, I sit down because I note that we are at 2 o'clock and question time can therefore begin.

Debate interrupted.

See this speech in context