Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Communications) Share this | Hansard source

I have been listening to the community and relevant stakeholder organisations about this measure. I am left wondering: who in fact did the government consult before proposing this measure? Who did they consult? Let's look, for example, at the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Council of Australia. FECCA is very well respected. It noted in its submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee:

FECCA believes that there is a substantial equity issue with a measure that treats migrants differently to those born in Australia. All migrants contribute not only to Australia’s economy and rich cultural diversity. There is no rationale for this action to treat some citizens differently from others. FECCA strongly opposes these discriminatory measures.

We in the Labor Party agree. We believe that older Australians who have worked hard their entire lives and contributed to the social and economic success of this country deserve to be able to travel overseas in retirement for a reasonable period without being penalised by the measures proposed in this bill. It appears the Prime Minister and those opposite disagree, but I can say here that Labor will stand up for these pensioners and oppose this most unfair measure because we believe Australian pensioners should not be punished for wanting to enjoy their retirement.

In my own community and around the country many people have expressed graves concerns regarding this harsh measure. Some constituents of mine from the suburb of Prospect wrote to me recently saying:

We have only two daughters—both of whom live overseas—and it is not much fun at our age to fly long-haul flights just to share time with our children. I would like Scott Morrison to try doing this in economy seating—28 hours door to door—and then to be penalised even further.

As well as this, I recently addressed a roundtable, organised by the very hardworking member for Calwell, with some of Melbourne's Turkish community who also mentioned the negative impact this would have on their parents, grandparents and extended families. Again, I would caution those opposite. It is not just those who will be directly impacted by this measure, the pensioners, who have expressed concerns. There is a palpable sense in the community that people do not want this to happen to their parents. There is anger in the community that the government would even think about proposing this sort of measure.

On that note, I want to mention an article from The Voice of the Maltese which reads:

One of our readers who came to Australia from Malta in the early 1950s and who did not want to be named, said the changes were "unnecessary if not stupid".

The reader went on:

It's a kind of discrimination towards migrants and a special worry to the Maltese.

To digress, in the electorate of Greenway we have a very large Maltese community. Many of the people in that have been very well established for some time. The suburb of Pendle Hill, in fact, was known for a very long time as 'little Malta'. I continue quoting:

You want to go Malta because in your twilight years … you want to spend some time with your close relatives before it's too late …

I also note the submission from the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association of New South Wales on this most unfortunate measure:

This 77 percent reduction in the amount of time will negatively impact people who visit their country of origin to see friends and relatives for longer periods of time. Those who travel to care for friends and relatives (or to be cared for themselves) will be particularly affected.

This change will not achieve substantial savings (particularly when the savings to Medicare and aged care when someone is overseas and not using these systems are factored in) but will be detrimental to pensioners who need to spend time outside of Australia.

The Australian Council of Social Services also opposes this measure, noting:

We have specific concerns about people on low incomes, particularly those born overseas, reliant on the full pension who may need to travel to fulfil family or other responsibilities for extended periods (including the provision of care, or to obtain care and support for themselves that is not available in Australia).

It is for these many reasons that Labor oppose this measure and the bill as a whole. We will always put people first; unlike the government, who see—and will continue to see—Australian pensioners as nothing more than a burden. It is a shameful cash grab by this out-of-touch Prime Minister, from some the most vulnerable in our community—people who, as I have said, have worked hard their whole lives and deserve to enjoy their retirement.

In closing, I want to mention something that was recently pointed out to me by a local constituent at one of my mobile offices. It was about older people from migrant communities and older people in general people, but this person was speaking as someone who has lived in Australia for a very long time. The economic contribution that older people make in this country to our society continues to be underestimated and even ignored by this government. The contribution that they make in areas such as child care and the fact that they often become the caregivers for their grandchildren, as well as go then to shops and purchase local services, mean that two parents can often be out working and making an economic contribution. I say that those older Australians are making not only a social contribution but a very valuable economic contribution to our society. To see so many of them discriminated against and being potentially penalised in such a downright mean manner according to the measures proposed in this bill is, I believe, an absolute disgrace. We are going to see communities up in arms about this. The government has grossly underestimated the opposition to this, and Labor will oppose this bill.

See this speech in context