Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I very much enjoy following a contribution from the member for Chifley. It's always full of euphemisms, and it certainly gives me the opportunity to compare and contrast our policies with those of the opposition. I must say to the member for Chifley: welcome aboard the decentralisation bus. I think you should take a bit of time to speak to your colleagues about it, because I'm fairly confident that they haven't supported it for some years, in fact decades. I'm pleased to see that, finally, someone over there supports the decentralisation of the Public Service into the regions, and I'm very supportive of what the member for Chifley had to say in regard to decentralisation.

But, of course, I rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting Retirement Incomes) Bill 2018. This bill implements measures announced as part of the 2018 budget to give retirees greater choice and flexibility when it comes to managing their finances in retirement. Why should that happen? Well, because they deserve it. Over a lifetime they garner experience that matters, that is invaluable, that can be passed on, that can be utilised, that can be transferred to those in need. So I think this is a great opportunity not only for them, not only for those others who are in the workplace, but also for us, because it is incredibly important that we can transfer the skills of those older Australians to others in need. I thank them all for their contribution. Certainly without that age bracket working as volunteers right around our country we would not be able to support as many things as we do. The time that they give freely is, I think, invaluable.

There are three main changes in the bill to support Australians in retirement. There's an expansion of the Pension Loans Scheme, an increase and expansion of the pension work bonus and a new means test rule to encourage the development and take-up of lifetime retirement income products. The member for Chifley said that we have found a sudden devotion to those on the pension, those who are older and more senior Australians, and those who are more experienced. That is absolutely not the case, especially in my electorate. At the 2016 census, the median age of people in the electorate of Hinkler was 46 years, which is about 10 years above the state average, and 25.4 per cent of them were aged 65 years and over—36,346 people. Approximately 20,500 of them, about 14 per cent, were aged between 55 and 64. As at June 2018, a total of 27,860 people were receiving the age pension in Hinkler. So for me, as a local member, they are an incredibly important sector of our community. We must stand up for what they need, and this bill makes changes that are good for them. They are good opportunities.

Let's compare and contrast what we are doing in the bill before us with the proposals from the opposition. I'll quote from the front page of NewsMail, my local newspaper: 'Hip-pocket hit for 5500 retirees'. There will be a hip-pocket hit for 5½ thousand retirees. That is an enormous number of people. But this is the proposal from those opposite. They want to go to them and take away some of their meagre returns at tax time. In fact, on average, it's just $2,200 a year. Those opposite put forward that they haven't paid tax. I'm not sure how they worked that out. People own a share in a company. It's their part of the company. It has paid tax. It's on their behalf. If they are a low-income earner, they're entitled to a tax refund like every other Australian. Every other Australian is entitled to that tax refund, but not according to those opposite. In fact, the local candidate for the Labor Party dug a pretty big hole for himself when he said:

Make no mistake, this is an unfair loophole that over-whelming benefits the wealthy.

Most people in Bundaberg have never heard of franking credits or know how to access them …

It's just outrageous. How can you suggest to these people who make their claim every year that they don't understand it, that it doesn't apply to them and that they are rich? They absolutely are not rich. The refund on average is $2,200. That might not make a lot of difference to a Labor Party organiser who is the candidate in Hinkler—I'm sure the union has plenty of money to pay his wages—but $2,000 for people on low incomes helps them with their rates bills and electricity bills. It helps them pay bills that they would otherwise not be able to pay.

See this speech in context