James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of the amendment moved by the member for Deakin in the other place. As he outlined in his second reading contribution as the lead speaker for the opposition, we will support the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting the Transition to Work) Bill 2023, but we have an amendment to the second reading to add some very important context to this debate. One of the reasons we are supporting the bill is that in many ways we never needed this bill in the first place. If 12 months ago the government had adopted the policy position that we put forward, and made a lot of these measures permanent, then we wouldn't be needing to pass this bill, which takes those temporary measures into permanency and gives that certainty to people that are benefiting from this sensible scheme announced by Peter Dutton in one of the first policy announcements we as a coalition made after the last election. The government were in a position where they couldn't possibly concede to a good idea from their opponents, so instead they had to mangle it a bit, change it and make it temporary. Now here we are 12 months later, debating legislation that fully implements the policy suggestion that we made to help more pensioners participate in the workplace.

We all know the three Ps: population, participation and productivity. At the moment, population is well under control, if not galloping at quite a frightening rate. More than half a million people are due to join the ranks of this country from net overseas migration, according to the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics population estimates. Population is growing very rapidly, and we have concerns about whether or not elements of that program are too high, particularly when we're not investing in or apportioning the right amount of infrastructure, and making sure we are bringing in people that our economy needs rather than a lot of people potentially coming in under other avenues that aren't necessarily within the spirit of our skilled-migration program.

On the participation side, this is absolutely a measure that makes an enormous amount of sense, which is why Peter Dutton suggested it after the last election. The government have tried to pretend it was their idea and now, 12 months later, are finally making it permanent, which is giving an opportunity for more people to participate in the workplace without impacting or affecting their pension. Quite reasonably, a lot of people are happy to work more hours in our economy if it doesn't impact their full entitlement to earning their pension, and there's a fair degree of human nature around that.

The member for Gilmore, in her contribution, made the spectacular concession that under the government she is a part of it's harder and harder for people to retire now onto the pension, particularly with the spiralling, increasing cost of living. We have a member of the government making a point in a debate that the government they are a part of is failing the people of this country, particularly the most vulnerable people of this country—people who are on fixed incomes—and making it impossible—because of the spiralling increases in the cost of living under the government that she is a part of—to make ends meet without also joining the workforce. I'm happy for her to make the point in the debate. It's curious, politically, to be a member of the government and say, 'We are failing on cost of living,' in a debate that is recorded and able to be used in a whole range of politically advantageous ways by her opponents, but I welcome the honesty. We don't usually get that. According to the member for Gilmore, the cost of living is spiralling out of control. That's on her watch and the watch of the government that she's a part of. We agree with her, of course. She's absolutely right, and it's nice to have a member of the government be honest about the enormous cost-of-living burdens that are on people.

As the member for Deakin makes clear in this amendment to the second reading, these cost-of-living burdens are making it really hard, particularly for people on a fixed income. We were told by this government during the election campaign, when they were seeking to become the government, that if people voted for them, they would ease their cost-of-living burdens. It was a core part of their message and narrative in the campaign. We heard claims that power prices would fall by $275 for the average household power bill. We heard that mortgages were too high under us, apparently. We had the famous comment from the Prime Minister, the then Leader of the Opposition, during the election campaign that mortgages were too high under the coalition. I think we all know what's happened since then. We have a cash rate—the Prime Minister wouldn't know what it is, but I know what it is—of 4.5 per cent at the moment. It went up one-quarter of a per cent at the last Reserve Bank meeting. Since the election it's gone up from 0.35 per cent, so a full four percentage points—it's increased by 400 basis points—on the cash rate. The overnight cash rate has only increased since this government was elected and so mortgages, if they were tough under the last government, are only four per cent harder under this government.

That $275 power bill cut certainly hasn't manifested itself in my electorate or in my home state. We've seen increases across the country. How's this? We have a government that say they will decrease power prices by $275. In my home state they've gone up by more than 22 per cent—22 per cent—on the default market offer in the state of South Australia. I think the national average is about 19 per cent. It's quite a spectacular departure from what we were told would happen if an Albanese government was elected—the average power bill would fall by $275 for the average family in this country, but instead they've gone up by about 20 per cent only 18 months later.

These huge cost increases are crippling for families, and they're particularly crippling for pensioners and people who are on a fixed income. So this bill is welcome because, regrettably, as the member for Gilmore conceded, quite remarkably, people do have to continue to work when they reach retirement age to make ends meet under this government. And that's no surprise if power prices are going up like they are. If you are retiring and you've got any mortgage left over, or if you rent—God help you if you rent and you're retiring onto the pension what with the way rental costs are going up at the moment!

I have pensioners in my electorate who have told me they've moved from buying fresh fruit and vegetables to frozen because it's just too difficult to make the budget stack up under this government and with the way in which inflation has spiralled out of control. Some of the most essential items—rents or mortgages, depending on your circumstances; fuel; fresh vegetables; electricity—all these things people can't do without—are going up at an even greater rate than the overall inflation rate in our economy. It's making it really difficult for pensioners, really difficult for people on fixed incomes to be able to make ends meet.

This bill does present us with an opportunity to allow pensioners to earn more money before it affects their pension. But, as our second reading amendment points out, we would like to see that go further. We think the work bonus should go up from $300 to $600 a fortnight. That would be $600 a fortnight before your pension is impacted because people need to earn that extra $600 a fortnight at the moment for all the reasons I've just outlined. They are having to make really difficult decisions—they're having to cancel family holidays or scale back the Christmas presents for the grandkids, whatever it might be. There are very few places that they can limit discretionary expenditure. Some of the most enjoyable things that people look forward to are having the family over for a Christmas celebration or buying the grandkids their Christmas presents, but now they've got to think really deeply about how they trim back the amount of money they spend on those things because it's all being gobbled by these huge increases in things like power bills.

A lot of these people would be thinking: 'It's funny. I voted for the Labor Party because they said my power bill was going to come down by $275 a year, and that seemed good to me. I wouldn't mind having my power bill dropped by $275 a year.' They made the not unreasonable assumption, although they've now learnt a lesson here, that the now Prime Minister wasn't a liar when he said: 'Power bills would drop by $275. Vote for me. I'd like to run this country and one of the big things I'll do is reduce your power bills.' A lot of people probably reasonably thought that he would honour that promise. They probably thought that was the truth, and now here we are, eighteen months later, in a totally different reality under this government. The people that were deceived by those sorts of promises will have their revenge on this government, and they'll do it through the great processes of our democracy, particularly at the ballot box, at the next opportunity that they get. That is completely at the feet of the people who make and then break promises to the Australian people. Voters take them at their word, elect them and expect them to implement those promises.

We support this bill. We would like to do a lot more to help senior Australians earn more money and contribute to the economy by taking a job and earning more in a fortnight before it impacts their pension. We know we've got very acute workforce issues across the board in this country at the moment. We of course would love to see senior Australians supported—not forced, but given the option—to stay in the workforce longer if they would like to, provided they get the commensurate and reasonable financial reward they would expect: being able to earn money without it impacting the pension they're entitled to.

We'd like to see the bill go further, but we nonetheless support it. We urge others to support this amendment on the second reading because it's important to acknowledge the significant cost-of-living burdens on all Australians, particularly the Australians that will be impacted by the bill that we are passing. It's a burden that they're enduring at the moment, as the member for Gilmore outlined in her contribution. We urge people to support this second reading amendment, which I commend to the House, and we are then equally happy to see this bill passed.

I will finish by acknowledging Peter Dutton for the excellent idea, which he first raised, that will now be implemented through the passage of this legislation.

See this speech in context