Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It seems that the Liberal Party think it's a good idea to reintroduce their failed bill of 2017 into the parliament again. This bill was a bad idea then, and it's a bad idea now. It's no surprise, therefore, to see that our speaking list today includes a mere two members of the government prepared to come in and defend the legislation they are putting into this House compared to a long, long list of Labor members who are prepared to stand here and argue against its introduction.

The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity) Bill 2019 proposed by this government is specifically targeting those groups who require the government's support. It is targeting pensioners, it is targeting unemployed Australians and it's targeting anyone trying to access Newstart, sickness allowance, youth allowance and Austudy. There is no-one on this side of the chamber surprised to see these attacks begin again. But it is a little ironic that a party which, during the recent election, claimed to be such huge advocates for retirees are, therefore, trying to make changes to the pension, which will force retirees to wait longer to access their pension.

What happened to: a pensioner's 'reward for a lifetime of hard work should always be a long, healthy and dignified retirement'? Those are words from those opposite, and yet, today, we've got this government confirming, by bringing in this legislation reintroducing the 2017 legislation, that they were empty promises made to retirees in May. The government said that they would support retirees' independence and dignity. They said they would ensure their savings are protected. They said they'd not undermine the value of their home, and they said they would protect and expand access to self-managed super. Isn't it ironic that this same party is making changes which would cease pension supplement payments entirely once pensioners have been out of Australia for six weeks?

This will affect not only pensioners currently in Australia but also pensioners who are already travelling overseas.

Older Australians who want to visit family overseas, or who simply want to travel after finally having the time off to travel, will be negatively affected by this legislation. It's just extraordinary. I think of the pensioners in my electorate. I think of the years and years of hard work. I think of the time and effort put into raising families. I think of them looking forward to the horizon, where they're going to retire, where many of them will have a chance to go home and visit families that they haven't seen for possibly 20 or 30 years, or perhaps they will be called back to look after a relative who is unwell. For them to realise that this government thinks their travel should be limited to six weeks or they will have their pension reduced because they are out of the country is a punishment. It is a punitive measure for those people who have spent years and years working in this country and raising their families. This government would determine that the trip of a lifetime, which is going to cost these people a lot of money in their minds, should be limited to six weeks. So, I have to tell you, if I were saving now for this once-in-a-lifetime trip overseas, I wouldn't want to fork out for those airfares for a mere six weeks. I certainly wouldn't want to do it if I hadn't been to my home country for decades. This government is choosing to curtail their travel or curtail their pension—that is their choice.

The portability of the pension has been a cornerstone of the Australian social security system, and the pension supplement is critical. By ceasing pension supplements entirely when pensioners are out of Australia for six weeks, the government is punishing pensioners. They are preventing Australians who need to go overseas to visit family or care for relatives, or who just want to take the trip of a lifetime, from doing so.

By increasing the residency requirements for age and disability pensioners from 10 years to 15 years, the government is forcing 2,390 people to wait longer to receive pension payments. That's an assessment annually—10 to 15 years, a 50 per cent increase. It's extraordinary the lengths this government's going to, really, to affect their budget bottom line at the expense of pensioners.

We know that older migrant Australians will have to become more reliant upon their families to support them. However, young families in Australia are facing so many financial pressures of their own, it's not practically viable for them to fully financially support their older relatives. If you think about that in the context of stagnant wage growth, if you think about that in the context of increased childcare costs, if you think about that just in terms of the increase in cost of living—is this how devoid of ideas the Liberal Party has become? They're trying to achieve their so-called budget surplus by ripping over $185 million out of the pockets of Australian pensioners.

And there's more. The bill is also proposing to extend the maximum liquid assets waiting period from 13 weeks to 26 weeks. There is no obvious policy rationale for this decision. It is simply a budget decision designed to flatter the government and hurt Australians by not allowing them to access their pension or Newstart or youth allowance for up to 26 weeks where liquid assets are involved. What does it mean? It means that those who claim Newstart, sickness allowance, youth allowance and Austudy must wait up to 26 weeks—that's six months, double the current time wait time—to access their payments if they have liquid assets of more than $18,000 for singles or $36,000 for couples or those with dependants. This means that in order to even be eligible to access the payments they need people are going to be forced to spend down their savings—spend down what I would term minimal savings.

It seems the government is suffering from cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, they claim that government support such as Centrelink exists to make those who access it self-sufficient in the future. Yet, on the other hand, they propose measures which will inevitably result in people being forced to spend down their current savings. It just doesn't make any sense, because spending down savings reduces people's financial independence. We know that we've got an issue at the moment in this country with payday lending practices and people taking out incredibly high interest loans. Reducing this savings before accessing social security may lead to an increase in the people becoming dependent on those loans. How do we achieve the aim of future self-sufficiency when bills such as this one serve to achieve the opposite?

The bill will impact on older Australians. They are the ones who form the largest group that currently endures the liquid asset waiting periods. This bill means that these older Australians may have to wait double the wait time they currently have. Increasing the waiting times for seniors applying for the pension will leave them to struggle and increases their likelihood of living in poverty. Think about that in tandem with the stories that we're hearing in our electorates and in our offices every day—stories of people's perception that the waiting times for the pension are increasing anyway, because they're not getting a response once they complete their application process. It is taking much longer, up to six months, for people to receive their first pension payment, and now we're going to have the liquid assets increase as well if this government gets its way.

The bill also impacts on students. Of course our students are going to be disinclined to save in order to support themselves through study if saving means that their ability to access youth allowance is impeded. This creates an absolute disincentive for our students who are on youth allowance. This creates a disincentive for them to save while they possibly get work over the summer and put a handy few thousand dollars aside. This disincentivises that process.

According to the Department of Social Services, 13,800 Australians are going to be affected by this bill each year. Eleven thousand of these people will be required to wait the full 26 weeks. On average, people would have to wait an additional 11 weeks before receiving their initial payment. The bill unfairly targets those who need government support the most. Is this how the government is planning to achieve their so-called budget surplus: by picking and choosing vulnerable groups to target? They not only have tried to cut the pension; they've also tried increasing the pension age to 70 for the past five years. They have a track record in this space. Again today we see that they're going to continue to target pensioners.

If we have a look at the time line of events, we see that, starting with the 2014 budget, they tried to cut the pension indexation, which would have left pensioners to live on $80 a week less within 10 years. So, an actual reduction in the pension was proposed. This would have caused an unfair cut of $23 billion that would have been reaped from pensioners across Australia. In the same year, 2014, they cut $1 billion from pensioner concessions and axed the $900 seniors supplement. In 2016 this government tried to reduce the pensions of 190,000 pensioners with their plan to limit overseas travel to six weeks, and here we have it back again. They tried to cut the pension for over 1.5 million Australians by scrapping the energy supplement for new pensioners. Why is it that Australians who are reliant on social services are left to wait? We're hearing about it every day from people who live in our electorates. Originally they were expected to wait one week. This has increased to 13 weeks of waiting for their liquid assets. There is no rationale behind this, as increasing the liquid assets waiting period will only leave people more vulnerable. This does the complete opposite of what this government had originally stated in its campaign before the election. It doesn't help people get back on their feet; it drives people towards poverty.

The government is trying to prevent individuals from having the financial buffer we all need in times of hardship. It is important that those who have savings are not forced to run down their accounts to the point of losing their homes or being unable to pay for everyday expenses. When I think about the liquid assets test, I'm often thinking about the women who are coming to see me. They are over 50, have lost their jobs and are still trying to pay a mortgage off, and they're looking at me and saying, 'I've got some savings where, if I get Newstart and I can use some of the savings, I can see a way where I can possibly pay the mortgage into the next four-month period.' Those plans will be washed up here. The buffer will be ripped from under them. The buffer will be absolutely ripped from under people at the worst time of their lives, and this government is going to tell them to spend down all of their savings before they can access the support that they've worked a long, long time for, assuming they might never need it but knowing and being comforted by the fact it was there if they did.

We need to see this legislation in the frame of our current economic situation. We've got a Liberal Party desperately looking for something to do, or so it seems today by their bringing in this legislation. They should start by paying some attention to the economy. We're currently facing wage stagnation, declines in productivity, higher unemployment, declining living standards and high underemployment. We've got two million Australians looking for work or for more work. Those are some things the government could put on their to-do list this week. They are all issues which need urgent attention, yet we are not hearing anything about that from the government. Instead, we are seeing this bill, designed to rip money out of the pockets of pensioners, a bill which will cause people to eat away at their savings and a bill which will create more stress for those who are currently looking for work. There is nothing in this bill that will create more jobs or grow the economy.

The government need a plan to fix the economy. They need to be paying attention to the things that this country needs them to do instead of sitting around a table brainstorming how they might hurt pensioners again this week and instead of coming up with ways for people to take a longer period of time to access social security. Let's cut to the chase—that's what this is about. They're saying: 'If you go overseas for longer than six weeks we're going to take part of your pension.' If you're a young person on youth allowance who's managed to put some savings away to buy a car, potentially, one day when you have finished studying and might need that car to get work, they're saying, 'No, you need to spend that down before you can access youth allowance.' If you're a young person with some savings from one job and you lose your job, the government want you to spend down those savings before you get any kind of support. So you can forget about paying your rent; it's home to mum and dad. That's what the government see as the future for young people. This bill pretty much bells the cat that the government need to pay more attention to what Australians expect them to be concerned about and stop bringing back legislation that has already failed in this place.

See this speech in context