Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | Hansard source

The Liberal government are hell-bent on cutting support for pensioners and seniors. Obviously, there is a bit of sensitivity from the member opposite. I will be glad to see whether he tells all of the pensioners in his electorate who were born overseas that he is cutting their entitlements. If he does not do it, I will.

The Liberal government are hell-bent on cutting support to pensioners and seniors. This is just the latest effort. Their first instinct is to take money off pensioners. Let us have a look at each and every one of the measures that that member over there who is making all that noise and every single other Liberal and National party member have so far voted for. First of all, they voted for a cut to pension indexation—a move that would have seen an $80 a week cut to the pension over 10 years. That is what they all voted for. They also voted for cuts to 330,000 pensioners by changing the pension assets test. That will now start next year, and each and every pensioner who is on a part pension because of the assets test knows that the Liberal government will cut their pension. They made cuts to pensioner concessions—the Liberal government took $1 billion out of pensioner concessions. The government also want to increase the pension age to 70. If they get that through the parliament, it will mean Australia would have the oldest pension age in the developed world. In this bill are cuts to pensioners who spend time out of Australia. That is the Liberal-National government's record on pensions—absolutely shameful.

It is important to note that this new cut, the latest cut by this Liberal-National party government to pensioners, is widely opposed by seniors groups, migrant groups and the welfare sector. The Council on the Ageing describes the change as:

… excessively punitive and inequitable in its impact on Australians not born in this country and who maintain cultural and familial ties to their place of birth.

Around 40 per cent of age pensioners were not born in Australia. The Council on the Ageing says the impact of the measure is likely to be:

… significant and unfairly borne by one segment of our community.

Their submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry goes on to say:

We know from our members and constituency that it is not unusual for older Australians born overseas to take 'the one big trip' to their country of birth when their working lives are over. They make the most of their time there, given the cost of travel, spending an extended period seeing family and friends before returning to Australia. COTA does not see this as unreasonable.

I think that best sums up the sentiment of so many people who have written to me on this issue. It is not unreasonable for pensioners to go for 'one big trip' in their retirement to visit their friends and family in the place of their birth.

The St Vincent de Paul Society said in their submission to the Senate inquiry into this bill:

It is unfair that a new Australian from a refugee background, who has had to return to their country of origin for a few months, should have their Pension cut significantly more than someone who has lived in Australia their whole life and then permanently emigrated overseas.

The Refugee Council of Australia also opposes this measure, noting that, due to the numerous problems with the family reunion program, refugee community members are often required to travel overseas for long periods of time to visit their relatives and community members. This is particularly important for those people who may have sick or dying relatives in secondary countries of asylum. So, clearly, the migrant and refugee communities are very much opposed to this change.

Of course, it does not end there. Also included in this bill are some other relics from this government's dark past. It includes the abolition of the pensioner education supplement. People opposite might like to forget the 2014 'lifters and leaners' budget. They have punted the previous Treasurer, Mr Hockey, out of the country, but what they have in this bill today is some of the remnants. The pensioner education supplement has, so far, outlasted the former Treasurer, Joe Hockey.

I will just remind people opposite what the pensioner education supplement is and who uses it. It is a payment of between $31.20 and $62.40 a fortnight, depending on levels of study, to help pensioners—largely, people on the disability support pension and the carer payment—who are studying. It provides a small but important payment to help with the costs of study. It can be used to purchase study aids, covering items like textbooks and other academic resources, and for printing, transport and internet connections. Once again, every Liberal and National Party member, having already tried to abolish this a number of times, is going to try again. This measure will see 47,000 pensioners lose their supplement. As the Women and Work Research Group at the University of Sydney has said:

For those in an already difficult financial position who are attempting to improve their education and consequently their employment prospects, these cuts will be significant.

The pensioner education supplement is a payment to people with disabilities, to people who are carers, to single parents and to young people who are studying. According to the Welfare Rights Centre, around three in 10 people on this payment are aged under 25, indicating that the payment offers beneficial support that helps young people to continue in education and study. Seven per cent of those studying with the pensioner education supplement are Indigenous. Around 40 per cent of people receiving the payment have a disability and so, in fact, it is people with a disability who will be the biggest losers if this supplement is abolished. It is a small allowance. It is nothing generous. It is nothing lavish—a maximum of $62 a fortnight—and yet this government, under the previous Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, and under this new Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, have sought to cut it. They have sought to cut it from people who are already in a difficult financial position, some of society's most vulnerable people. That really is what this government's approach to budget repair is about.

This bill also seeks to abolish the education entry payment—once again, another small payment that goes to recipients of Newstart, parenting payment and partner or widow allowance. In 2013-14, around 87,000 people received the payment. This, too, is a payment that is designed to help vulnerable people with study costs, and yet this government, under Prime Minister Turnbull, and every member of the Liberal and National parties are trying to rip it away.

The final measure in this bill reintroduces something that was contained in the 2014 budget and later introduced in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment and Other Measures) Bill 2015. These changes include freezing, for three years, the income-free areas for all working-age allowances—other than student payments—and for parenting payment single from a new start date of 1 July 2016. So, in a few months time, if the government gets its way, it will try to freeze—that is, not increase, even to keep up with inflation—all of those working-age allowances.

They also want to freeze, for three years, the income-free areas and other means-test thresholds for student payments, including the student income bank, from 1 January. What we see with this measure is the Liberal-National Party government's steadfast commitment to make life harder for young Australians. By freezing these thresholds, more young Australians will be ineligible to get assistance while they undertake study or training. The measure is absolutely consistent with this government's—both Mr Abbott's and Mr Turnbull's—approach of forcing young people to wait one month before they get access to any sort of income support.

Of course, originally they wanted to make young jobseekers wait six months before accessing any income support. Labor was able to stop that. Then the Liberal Party came back under the current Prime Minister and wanted to make people wait a month before they get any form of income support. So people are supposed to live on absolutely nothing for a month. I am very pleased to say to the House that Labor, so far, has been able to stop the government from pushing young people into poverty and hardship. I hope we can continue to do that.

In summary, this bill gives us further evidence that, no matter who is leader of the Liberal Party, they will always seek to cut support to pensioners, to people with disability, to carers, to women and to young people. It is a bill introduced by a minister whose biggest legacy as the Treasurer of Western Australia was leaving behind a $3.1 billion deficit. It is a bill from a Prime Minister who claims that he is committed to fairness but then tries to cut support to pensioners, to people with disability, to their carers, to women and to young people—a Prime Minister who we now know and see every single day says one thing and then does another.

He says he believes in fairness and then he tries to sneak through cuts to pensioners. Whether it is on fairness, climate change, marriage equality or the republic, this Prime Minister says one thing and does another. By contrast, Labor will always put people first. That is why we have fought against so many of this government's unfair cuts. Unlike this Prime Minister, who puts power before principle, Labor will put people first, and that is exactly what we are doing by opposing this bill.

See this speech in context