Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Digital Economy) Share this | Hansard source

I want to make three points about the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting Retirement Incomes) Bill 2018: firstly, to talk about the things in this bill that we are quite open to supporting; secondly, to talk about the context in which this bill is being considered and some of the history behind some of the things that led us to this point; and, thirdly, to raise my concerns about the way in which pensioners today are being treated or, I might say, mistreated by this government through the failure to deal with pensioner concerns and the way in which pensioners are being treated when they interact with the government.

At the outset, we have said that we certainly are open to some of the measures that are being put forward in the bill itself. The bill changes the way pooled lifetime income stream products are means tested and increases the amount of money pensioners can earn from employment under the pension work bonus. This was an initiative introduced by the Rudd Labor government. The bill itself increases the rate at which pensioners can draw down their assets under the Commonwealth's reverse mortgage program, the Pension Loans Scheme. I think it is important to point out that that this scheme is a legacy of the Hawke Labor government. The bill also opens up the Pension Loans Scheme to full-rate pensioners and seeks to expand on important Labor legacies which expanded income streams for pensions.

On the work bonus, I must say, I am particularly supportive of this element, which is allowing, in particular, for pensioners over the pension age to keep in contact with the workforce. That allows them to keep more of their pension while they're having earnings from working. It functions by exempting a certain amount of income from the pension income test, above the pension income test-free area. Currently, the work bonus exempts the first $250 of fortnightly employment income. This bill will increase that to $300 a fortnight. There is also an increase in the work bonus income bank from a maximum of $6,500 to a maximum of $7,800. These things are important in an environment where many industries are experiencing skills shortages and where skills shortages may be an increasing concern.

Given some of the changes that we are seeing in the labour market, finding a way to keep people who have built up expertise and experience through their work life and keeping them engaged in some way in the workforce is good for the individual. It is also good for the country to have that expertise put into place. If we can also quite strongly deal, as a nation, with some of the perverse age discrimination that occurs in our workplaces—at a time when those same workplaces are crying out for more workers—I think that is an important thing.

We do know that the nature of work in this country is changing and that there are some people who will find, through the process of firms applying new technology in their workplaces, that automation may have an impact on jobs. We need to find new ways to retrain people and to get them new roles as well. There will be older people who still want to maintain contact with the workforce. We also need to ensure that their skills are up to date and that we provide adequate, strong and practical training platforms that allow for older Australians to maintain contact with the workforce.

We have to make sure that we don't have disincentives in place that mean that people who are accepting a pension feel that they can't work in the workforce, they can't contribute to the workforce or they can't, in some way, reduce the skills shortages that exist. The rules that we've set around their pension might mean that they feel that if they work too much then they are going to lose some of their pension. These types of changes that we're talking about in here are really important. We are certainly happy to support some of the changes that have been put forward. My colleague the member for Barton, the shadow minister for social services, has spoken at length about some of the other elements to this bill that we're quite open to—in terms of the Pension Loans Scheme and the pooled lifetime income streams—and has canvassed those at length.

I did say that there were two other elements to my contribution today that I wanted to make. The next one is about the context in which this occurs. As much as I and my other colleagues have expressed support for some of these initiatives, this has not been developed by a government that has been friendly to pensioners. We suddenly hear, as the member for Gorton and I have been subjected to in this place and elsewhere, this found devotion for post-retirement incomes by those opposite. We heard all the campaigning, the quite disgraceful campaigning, that was waged by the member for Goldstein in his role as the chair of a parliamentary committee that should not be so blatant in its politicking and its fundraising—using a parliamentary committee to do all these things. At no point have we seen these people stand up for pensioners in the same way that they want to stand up for people who are getting franking credits in excess of what they need; those people are given large amounts of government money. Those opposite have suddenly said, 'This is an unfair thing to even think, taking away these excess credits.' But, when you consider all the things that were being proposed by this government to impact people on some of the lowest incomes in the community—older Australians who are pensioners—you've never seen them stand up for pensioners in the same way.

Look at the way in which the coalition has sought to attack pensioners. For the five years of this government, the current Prime Minister spent five budgets, including three as Treasurer, trying to cut the pension and one as the Minister for Social Services trying to raise the pension age to 70. In the 2014 budget, they tried to cut pension indexation, which would have meant pensioners would be forced to live on $80 a week less within 10 years. It was an unfair cut that would have ripped $23 billion from the pockets of every single pensioner in Australia. We never hear them talk about that. They all signed up to it; they were all happy to see this happen to pensioners.

In 2014 they cut $1 billion from pensioner concessions—$1 billion in support designed to help pensioners with the cost of living, and they cut it. Again, none of them turned up to parliamentary committees and none of them set up those dodgy websites where they think they can score a political point. They're never there to back in pensioners. In 2014 they axed the $900 seniors supplement to self-funded retirees receiving the Commonwealth seniors card. In 2014 they tried to reset deeming rate thresholds, which would have seen 500,000 part-pensioners made worse off. Where were these people in standing up for people? They were nowhere to be seen. They all filed, one after the other, to back in these impacts on older Australians.

In 2015 they went at it again. They did a deal with the Greens to cut the pension of around 370,000 pensioners. Mind you, the Greens in the Batman by-election suddenly thought that they were going to stand up for older Australians and said they wouldn't support Labor's campaign to reform franking credits. This is the same party who sidled up to that party over there to rip off older Australians. As I said, 370,000 pensioners would be affected by as much as $12,000 a year by changing the pension assets.

Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—

If they don't have a good memory—my friend the member for Gorton points out the need for memory—we will remind them every single day. We remember absolutely what they tried to do to older Australians.

In the 2016 budget, not content with all those other changes, they then tried to cut the pension of around 190,000 pensioners as part of a plan to limit overseas travel for pensioners to six weeks. How dare they want to stay in contact with family members overseas and leave the country! So they decided they would go in there and rip off the pension even more. In the 2016 budget they also tried to cut the pension for over 1.5 million Australians by scrapping the energy supplement for new pensioners. Now they are getting up and saying, 'We saved the energy supplement.' They wanted to get rid of that energy supplement time and again. It was only through a sustained campaign led by the member for Jagajaga to maintain the energy supplement that they buckled and, at the last moment, relented and refused to cut out the supplement that in their heart of hearts they have tried to rip off for ages.

Scrapping the energy supplement would've left over 583,000 Australians who are currently receiving a pension or allowance worse off and, over 10 years, that would have been in excess of 1.5 million pensioners. Where were you when this was being done—through the chair, if you don't mind me saying in general terms, where were those opposite when this was being proposed?

On top of this, they spent five years trying to increase the pension age to 70, which would have been the highest in the OECD, and still refused to adjust deeming rates. They want to completely take away the pension supplement from pensioners who go overseas for more than six weeks, and they still want to make pensioners born overseas wait longer before qualifying for the age pension. That is what those opposite do.

If that's not bad enough, they make older Australians wait longer to access the age pension. They've changed the goalposts on when they'll deliver a decision for older Australians. It used to be, roughly, 36 days. Now it's up to 49 days. When they delay the decision to grant older Australians the age pension due to them, they say, 'It's not our fault; it's the fault of the average Australian making the claim. They should have done it earlier.' What a joke, a government that can't get its act together to determine whether or not a person eligible for the age pension should get it. It's not that they can't do it; it's that they won't. They are holding back money to older Australians because they refuse to pay out the age pension. They put up every type of excuse possible, but they will not pay out the age pension to those who deserve it.

They have cut jobs from the Department of Human Services. They make you wait for ages when you're on the phone trying to get help. They make it near impossible to turn up to a Centrelink or Medicare office to get service. They're always trying to take you to a website or, failing that, a phone call, but they don't provide support to make sure those things operate efficiently. The government continually blames the average older Australian for things that they should be accountable for or, as the member for Gorton said, that they should accept responsibility for. They refuse to do it. When you look at the number of jobs they've cut, when you look at the number of contractors they've put on and when you look at the way complaints have soared it is no surprise you are getting this outcome.

For what they are putting forward we have said:' Enough's enough.' Our side of politics has said we will invest in better service and we will invest in a new workforce and we will put 1,200 people into DHS to make sure people get the help they need and at the time they need it most. I am very proud that we announced 50 new jobs in the seat of Longman over the course of last year. We announced 50 jobs in Braddon. I'm particularly proud that in our decentralisation push we announced, for the seat of Herbert, 200 DHS jobs in Townsville, and we announced 100 jobs for the seat of Leichhardt. This is to make sure that people get help when they need it most. It's to see good jobs go out to the regions instead of being stuck in one place. It delivers on a decentralisation agenda. Those opposite talk about it but fail to deliver. It's up to us to make sure that it happens.

You don't hear the Minister for Human Services commit to these jobs or stop the job cuts. Instead, he's out there defending the contractors and saying he'll do more contracting out. It's a continued recipe for failure, given the way complaints have soared under this government. Instead of backing in better service, backing in full-time jobs, recognising that people want that work, recognising that the public want better service, he says to us, 'What are you going to do about the contractors?' It's like he's a member of a government that's cut jobs but has discovered a commitment to job security, all of a sudden! That is patently false. What they are committed to is an ideological obsession with contracting out, with reduced employment standards and reduced commitment to service—at a time when older Australians depend on that service.

While there's a lot to be said in favour of this bill, it is done against a backdrop of declining service, under this government's watch, a failure to deliver the service Australians expect. I expect the next member who gets up can defend all the rip-offs of pensioners that he has been an accomplice to! (Time expired)

See this speech in context