Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I also seek to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Energy Assistance Payment and Pensioner Concession Card) Bill 2017. The bill has two purposes: firstly, in providing a one-off energy assistance payment, which will apply to nearly four million pensioners; secondly, in reinstating the pensioner concession card, which I understand will be provided to some 92,000 people who, since 1 January this year, have no longer been eligible for the pensioner concession card due to the changing of the assets test. Let there be no doubt that we will support this bill because we are committed to supporting the most vulnerable and most disadvantaged in the community. That is not exactly why the government is doing this, by the way, but I will come to that.

Labor will always move to hold the government to account. We will not let the government get away with the savage and unfair cuts to Australian pensioners. We will not let the government fool everyday Australians into thinking that they care about pensioners. History has shown us differently. Time and time again, we have seen what the Liberals do in terms of the notion of fairness. The fairness certainly does not ring true in this current budget. If you go back into the last four budgets, you can also see that one constant theme was they could retrieve money from some of the most vulnerable in our community. Some of the most vulnerable people are our age pensioners who rely on disability support.

The past four budgets of the Abbott-Turnbull government have certainly been a classic example of that. Many of the measures did not get through the Senate, but they were still there. They were referred to as the 'zombie measures'. Bear in mind that in 2013 when the member for Warringah, Tony Abbott, was leader of the coalition, he went to the election promising that there would be no changes that would impact on pensioners. In their very first budget after they formed government, the 2014 budget had limitations put on the indexation that would be applied to pensions. They moved straightaway to impact the cuts on pensioners. They moved straightaway to take the energy supplement off pensioners and people that were living on disability support pensions and people on Newstart.

Simply because this bill comes to us today and says that there is some additional money being put out to pensioners, it does not mean that they have changed their spots on this. They have not changed at all when it comes to addressing the issue of fairness and decency for some of those who are the most vulnerable people in our community. Bear in mind, this government, as it stands now, is wedded to a retirement age of 70 before people can receive the old age pension. That, by the way, will be the oldest retirement age in the developed world for receiving a state-funded pension for retirement.

I would like to think that members opposite might reflect on this a little. I know many of them are a lot younger than 70 years of age, but, perhaps, some of them speak to their parents. Do they really think that they can expect people to work—and some of those people are going to be without assets and are going to be working in construction and other labouring-based industries—until they are 70 before they can attract a pension? I know that the people I used to represent before coming into parliament, the police officers of the country, have all assured me that they would not want to be out on trucks wrestling drunks and out at pubs, and things like that, at 70 years of age. These people opposite just do not get that. There has to be fairness and decency in the way that we treat people in our community. Simply trying to jack up retirement age is not one of the ways to do that, particularly when they have a view that, whilst they cannot find money to treat pensioners fairly and they cannot find the money to support the indexation of pensions, they can find $65 billion for tax cuts to big business—many of which will be multinationals, so the profits will go offshore. They can do that okay but fail to actually look after the vulnerable in our community. We on this side of the House will never walk away from people who do not have a large voice or footprint in terms of what they can and cannot demand. We will always speak up for them. We will be the ones always fighting to make sure that they get a fair deal.

In schedule 1 of the bill the government are offering a one-off energy assistance to pensioners of $75. About four million pensioners that will get that. But do not forget that the government also have a plan to actually take away from pensioners the energy assistance supplement of $365 that applies each year. These pensioners are already receiving that. That is going to be taken away and they are going to be given $75. As the member for Eden-Monaro said, it is like having someone take four tyres off your car and then give one back and expect to get a pat on the back for being generous. The government are physically taking that money away and simply saying, 'Because we're going to give them $75 that should make a difference.'

Bear in mind that this is an energy assistance payment. It has been very quiet from many of those who ranted and raved on that side of the House in the last term of the government about energy prices going up. I cannot speak for everyone, but I know in New South Wales energy prices just about doubled. The fact that they have doubled means that everyone is having to dig a bit deeper to pay for their energy costs. But people that are pensioners cannot decide to just go and work another shift, get some overtime or take on a casual job to make up the difference. People who are on an age pension do not get those opportunities. The energy supplement of $365 a year was there to help make up that difference, and that is now being taken away. As I said, we will not oppose the bill because it is going to put money out there—the $75 payment—but we will certainly move to resist those other aspects trying to restrict the ongoing energy supplement of $365 a year being paid to pensioners in this country.

Often I wonder about the government and the way they reflect on some of the most vulnerable in the community. To be quite honest about it, it is not that the pensioners are all going to get together and outvote them; pensioners probably do not have that sort of political power. It is not that they are going to have placards in front of the member for Wentworth's office, because that is probably not what pensioners do. People who have made a lifetime of contribution to this country are entitled to be treated fairly and decently. We only have to look back to 2013, when those who formed this government said there would be no change to issues such as pensions, education and health. Just look to see what they have done in their time in government. They have moved on each and every one of those areas. They have moved to make those changes. They have moved to make cuts and to make it more difficult for the vulnerable in our community to live.

The other aspect of this bill seeks to perform a well overdue backflip. It is going to actually return the pensioner concession card to people who did have it but, due to a change to the asset test, became ineligible for that pensioner concession card on 1 January this year. It is a much overdue backflip. It is trying to right a wrong they created. This is another broken promise by this government. The former Treasurer, Joe Hockey, who was the member for North Sydney, when he stood up and spoke in this parliament made it very clear:

… anyone who currently has a Pensioner Concession Card will continue to receive a concession card that provides the same benefits …

Clearly that just did not happen, because it is changed, so we have this backflip occurring now. They are trying to, again, say that they are being magnanimous to the pensioners out there, that they are doing something for them. What they are not saying is that they are correcting something that they created, and that is the asset test that made these people ineligible to hold the card they once held.

There is the temptation to come into the parliament and talk just about the theory of these things. But those of us who actually get out and among the community, who actually talk to real people, really start to see how it impacts. One of my constituents visited my office about this. Marian Parkin came to see me about what this would mean to her. She is one of those 92,000 people who lost their pensioner concession card. As she said, she and her husband relied on the card heavily. It got them through the hardships of daily life. For example, she indicated to me that prior to losing the pensioner card she would receive water bills of about $88 a year in Sydney. I suppose for a pensioner that is about average. But now those water bills, without any increase in her and her husband's use of water, are just a little under $300 a year. So, her position is being further impacted. It certainly does not help when the government takes away these concessions and then expects people who have no ability to raise additional income, other than borrowing from family members, to just meet the rising costs of living.

This may not mean much to those sitting opposite, but elderly Australians deserve to see that they will be treated with fairness and decency, whichever government is in power. Part of the reason for pulling this back in the first place was to make good on a promise to give a $65 billion tax cut. That certainly does not go down well with pensioners, the people who are on fixed incomes or the working families out there. People think that first and foremost we look after our own. We know that a majority of the tax cut is going to multinational companies and will find its way overseas. I think countries like Australia are in a very good place. We know that countries like Australia are sought-after investment destinations. Yet we are depriving our own. We cannot find the money to look after schools. We cannot find the money to keep our health system free of Medicare cuts. And we cannot find the money to treat pensioners with fairness and decency. But we can, as of 1 July this year, ensure that anyone who is earning $1 million a year will get a tax cut in the vicinity of $16½ thousand—while everyone else, by the way, will have a tax increase, and the government will pursue its endeavour of giving big business a tax cut of $65 billion.

This is a government that has misled vulnerable Australians from time to time. Right from the election in 2013, this government has promised that there will be no changes to the pension. But, despite the promise, after six months of being in government, it moved to cut pensions as quickly as it could. It falls to us to actually stand up for those who do not have a strong voice in our community. (Time expired)

See this speech in context