Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise today to join with my Labor colleagues in expressing my opposition to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Budget Repair) Bill 2015 because the proposed budget repair measures contained in this bill target the most vulnerable people in our community by continuing this government's assault on the lives and wellbeing of the thousands of age pensioners and other welfare recipients who live in my electorate of Calwell. This bill reintroduces measures from the 2015 budget—changes to the proportional payment of pensions outside of Australia—and it also reintroduces measures in the 2014 budget, measures that the opposition will continue to oppose because they are unfair and heavy handed.

In my speech today I want to make some comments in relation to the 2015 budget measures that seek to reduce the payment of the age pension outside of Australia. This is a highly contentious issue and it has drawn widespread criticism and outrage from my constituents and from the broader migrant community, welfare agencies and non-English-speaking media for it unfairness and its implications. I want to join with the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils, the Australian Council of Social Service, the Refugee Council of Australia and, more importantly, the many local pensioner groups and other welfare recipients in my electorate who have come out strongly in their opposition to this bill.

If this bill is passed, thousands of age pensioners in my electorate and across this country who have had fewer than 35 years living and working in Australia will have their benefits reduced if they travel overseas for more than six weeks in a year, according to the length of their Australian working life residence. Because these measures do not affect those who are born in Australia who have worked and lived in Australia for over 35 years this bill creates a discriminatory pension system that will disadvantage a very large number of Australian age pensioners for no substantive reason other than the estimated budget saving of $168.4 million over four years.

At issue here is the practice of many Australian age pensioners to travel, usually to their country of birth, for holidaying and visiting family. Presently they are able to remain overseas for a period of 26 weeks before their pension is affected. I must say that this dramatic reduction of 20 weeks has sent shock waves through our age pension community, and rightfully so. Forty per cent of those receiving the age pension were born overseas but they are Australians living in Australia who continue to maintain strong and important ties with their country of birth. A tie to ancestral homes is a human condition, which has always been encouraged and practised in this migrant multicultural country of ours. Seven million Australians were born overseas, so travel to one's country of birth to visit family is a very Australian thing to do.

If passed, the measures proposed in this bill will severely impact on the ability of Australian age pensioners to continue to travel to their country of birth because the dramatically reduced timeframe is, as many of my age pensioners have already told me, 'too short'. To further quote them: 'It is a very long trip. At our age we need time to recover and we want more time to spend with family and friends.' My age pensioners are appalled at this proposal and offended because they cannot understand why and with what logic the government wants to restrict in such a draconian, mean and discriminatory way their capacity and freedom to visit without censure.

I know my local age pension communities very well. I have all too often heard their stories of migrating to Australia, the difficulties they experienced and the lifelong pain of separation from family. They can never forget their country of birth, but they love this country and are proud Australians. Indeed, they have worked here for a large part of their working life. They are grateful for the opportunities that Australia has given them. They have raised their children here and it is their grandchildren who bring them joy and finally anchor them here in their home country Australia. But for all of them growing old brings many challenges, fears and increasing desires to reconnect with their country of birth, their past and the families and friends they left behind when they migrated to Australia.

The age pensioners in my electorate are migrants from Ireland, Britain, Turkey, Greece, Italy, Malta, Serbia, Croatia and India, just to name a few. They have strong extended family values and as a result have maintained strong emotional ties to family and friends in their country of birth. They have maintained their faith, language and cultural practices. In fact, it is widely acknowledged that in their senior years people have a tendency to revert to their mother tongue and their memories and connections to their country of birth. It is a very common part of the ageing process and, of course, we see this a lot in people who are suffering from dementia.

Everyone in this House who has an ageing community will know that quality of life affects the wellbeing of elderly people. Financial concerns, loss of their life partner, adult children who have their own families and busy lives, and a society that is not necessarily an easy and inclusive place for the migrant elderly in particular inevitably lead to isolation, depression and loneliness becoming common features of the ageing process. Being able to connect with loved ones and socialise with like-minded people who speak your language and understand you is important to mental health and wellbeing and this is the reason many of my constituents travel to their place of birth, where they often find the comfort, support and respite they need.

In most cases this is the only option they have for seeing their families because their family members cannot travel to Australia, often because our visa system is difficult and expensive. It is also the most convenient time for Australian age pensioners to travel because, having retired, they no longer have the tyranny of clocking on and clocking off. So they are grateful for the opportunity to travel, usually during Australia's winter months, to the Northern Hemisphere summer.

This travel is very much looked forward to. They enjoy seeing their family members and spending time in the villages where they were born. Often, it is to attend happy family occasions but, sadly, it also involves visiting sick and dying relatives and spending time providing emotional and moral support as well as receiving it. Receiving their age pension whilst overseas is key to enabling this travel.

The age pension is a modest amount of money. It adds up to about $20,498 for singles and between $30,903 and $33,982 for couples. I know, for a fact, that those aged pensioners who travel will skimp and save and chase the cheapest off-season fares in order to afford these holidays. Being able to stay overseas at the current 26 weeks gives them value for money and, by no stretch of the imagination, does it imply or assume that because they can travel they must be rich enough not to be eligible for the age pension.

The government has estimated the budget measures in this bill will save $168.4 million, over four years, if implemented on 1 January 2017. My constituents would like to know where the government bases these projected savings. Are they contingent on pensioners breaching by exceeding the six-week period whilst overseas? If so, this is, definitely, an unstable basis upon which to pursue budget repair. My constituents' views are that those affected by this budget measure will simply not travel, and what does the government gain, anyway? It looks to them like the government is trying to squeeze blood out of a stone.

I recently met with members of the Australian Turkish Business Council, in my electorate, and they raised this issue with me. They too cannot see where the savings are going to come from. They explained to me that their parents would likely refrain from travelling and would end up costing the Australian government more. They would be here for the Australian winter and would be more likely to use the health services, because they would 'be at the doctor's all the time'. They all agreed that this is a mean and illogical measure.

These are small-business owners, successful and hard-working Australians of Turkish background who, like their parents before them, are making a contribution to the Australian economy. They do not appreciate government measures that essentially discriminate against their elderly migrant parents and that make judgement about their loyalty to Australia and the value of their citizenship.

In an article in the English language newspaper Neos Kosmos, on Saturday, 30 January, a spokesperson for the social services minister said:

The government believes a person's retirement costs should be fairly distributed between the countries a person has spent most of their working life.

It continued:

It is the expectation that where a person has spent a proportion of their working life overseas, they will be eligible to receive a pension from that country.

Whilst this may be true for some migrants it is not the reality for many migrants from countries that do not have comparable pension policies. Where the 30-odd social security agreements are already in place, Australian age pension rates are already proportional to country-of-birth pension contributions. The truth is that Australian aged pensioners are not going back to their country of birth to live there permanently, they are going there temporarily—on a holiday—and this drastic reduction is just mean and petty. My constituents are rightfully outraged, and I stand with them by voting against this bill.

In its submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, the Federation Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia said these measures are:

… a large group of people having a significantly lower level of rights than another part of the population, are inequitable and do not contribute to social cohesion within Australian society.

I agree with this assertion—and so do my constituents—and advise the government that in its search to address budget repair it should turn its attention to major tax evaders, including large corporations. The government should resist the temptation for easy options, such as attacking some of the most vulnerable groups in society.

This is not good policy and I am pleased to say that the federal Labor opposition will oppose it. Labor does not support such punitive and deeply unfair, imbalanced and discriminatory measures. I certainly do not commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context