Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) after almost 12 long years of inaction by the former Australian Coalition Government, the current Australian Labor Government has delivered historic pension reforms that have provided increases of $154 per fortnight for max-rate single pensioners and $156 per fortnight for max-rate pensioner couples;

(b) the NSW Government increased public housing rents for pensioners in 2011, taking away some of the Australian Government’s 2009 pension increase;

(c) the Australian Government is delivering extra assistance to millions of Australian pensioners through the Household Assistance Package;

(d) this new assistance is being delivered as a stand-alone pension supplement, separate from the base pension rate, so that pensioners living in public housing could receive the full benefit of this assistance without it affecting their social housing rents; and

(e) the NSW Government has announced that it will include this assistance when calculating social housing rents from March 2013, meaning pensioners living in public housing will not receive the full benefit of the Australian Government’s assistance.

(2) condemns the NSW Government for increasing rents for about 84,000 NSW pensioners and taking away part of their pension increase; and

(3) calls on the Opposition to guarantee it would not take away the pension increases as part of the Household Assistance Package if in government.

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded? I recognise the member for Hayes.

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

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise unexpectedly, I guess, given the calibre of our new state government in New South Wales, to condemn that government for increasing rents for about 84,000 New South Wales pensioners in public housing and taking away part of their pension increase. Unfortunately, this is standard behaviour for this particular government.

After almost 12 long years of inaction by the former Australian coalition government, the current Labor government delivered historic pension reforms that have provided significant increases to pensioners: $154 per fortnight for the maximum rate single pensioners and $156 per fortnight for maximum rate pensioner couples. That was delivered in 2009. Then, in 2011, after Premier Barry O'Farrell became Premier of New South Wales, he put his hand in the pockets of those pensioners and took some of it for himself by increasing public housing rents.

Now we have a supplement coming through to pensioners of $250 for singles and $380 for couples, paid as a separate pension supplement because it is designed to compensate pensioners of all kinds—including disability pensioners and seniors pensioners—for what will be a modest increase in costs due to the price on carbon. In fact, it is due to overcompensate them for that modest price. But, once again, we have the Premier of New South Wales putting his hand into the pockets of pensioners and declaring that once that supplement becomes part of the base rate, in March next year, he will claw some of it back for himself. It is without any doubt a grubby cash grab on the part of this Liberal New South Wales government.

Many pensioners are doing it tough—we know that. They live on fixed incomes. They are aware every day of which prices are going up and which prices are not. For many, many years they were neglected by the Liberal government at the federal level. It is only since the Labor government came to power that their interests have been considered and large increases have been given. And, once again, we see the true character of the Liberal government in New South Wales in their willingness to put their hands into the pockets of pensioners and rip out whatever small benefit we might give them.

The irony in this is that if we gave this as a cash upfront supplement, in the way that the Howard government did from time to time, it probably would not be anywhere near as easy for a state Liberal government to rip some of it away. It is also in many ways politically more beneficial to pay it as a lump sum, because when the cheque arrives in the mail or the money arrives in the bank account you get the absolute recognition that this government did it or that government did it. So, politically, it is probably smarter to do it as a one-off payment rather than build it into the base, and that would also prevent the New South Wales government from making this grubby cash grab. But it is better for the pensioners if you build it into the base. That recognises that pensioners need to manage their budgets, and if it is built into the base they know exactly what they are getting on a weekly basis and can make their own choices about how they do that.

So if you do it the best way for the pensioner you get a grubby New South Wales government doing their best to take some of it back. This is appalling behaviour and I can tell you that the pensioners in my electorate—and there are over 3½ thousand of them—are very angry about this. I have also talked to my colleague Michelle Rowland, the member for Greenway, who is at home at the moment with her quite gorgeous new baby. She has been working very hard in her electorate on this, visiting public housing estates, writing to the Premier and talking to her pensioners, as I have been talking to mine, and I can tell you that the anger out there among pensioners in public housing is quite extraordinary. What an act from a state government that pretended in the election campaign they would be a warm and fuzzy government—the minute they were elected they put their hands into the pockets of pensioners to take money out. This is a money-grubbing act from a money-grubbing government. I condemn the New South Wales government for it. And I call on the opposition to guarantee that they will not take away this pension increase as part of the household assistance package if they are elected. (Time expired)

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before calling the next speaker I apologise to the member for Fowler for incorrectly calling his title.

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

I was flattered.

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think 'the member for Hayes' has a very good ring to it, and perhaps we may see that one day; it would be great recognition of the present member for Fowler's contribution to this parliament. Turning to the motion, I think it is extraordinary that the member for Parramatta talks about this increase as being somehow unique to a coalition New South Wales state government when in fact the previous state government in New South Wales, a Labor government, did the same thing for 16 years and the present South Australian Labor government has been doing the same sort of thing for 10 years. That is why the Howard government on many occasions used lump sums and special allocations—to avoid state governments taking their share of any increases in pensions. So this is nothing new. This has been around for a long time, and if you look at the New South Wales government, they are saying that they are actually $5 billion worse off in GST payments in the latest budget figures, and of course they are not getting compensation for the carbon tax. If we did not have a carbon tax, none of this would arise anyway.

Let's look at 1(a) of the member for Parramatta's motion, talking about how, supposedly, the Howard government ignored pensioners for nearly 12 years. It was, in fact, the Howard government that changed the pension system to 25 per cent of the MTAWE, the male total average weekly earnings, instead of the old CPI increases. The MTAWE rate was a much higher rate. That built up, and, by the time the Howard coalition government lost power, that would have meant in real terms over the period of those increases $80 a week more than if we had stuck to the old Labor Party system. We had increases twice a year at higher than the CPI and so in real terms we increased pensions continually. Politically, it might have been smarter to do that every six months and say, 'Here we are, we are giving you a bit extra,' but we put it into the system so that pensioners always got that increase.

If you want to look at how Labor has acted, in 2008 the coalition proposed a private members' bill to provide a $30 a week increase in the single age pension, and guess what—the Labor government with all its numbers opposed this bill and used its numbers in parliament to defeat it. The coalition's ongoing pressure eventually forced this government to award pensioners an increase in the 2009 budget, leading to the permanent increase in the pension to 27.7 per cent of MTAWE. It was only under our pressure that they actually folded, because we remember the present Prime Minister saying in cabinet that we should not give increases to the pensioners because they were going to vote for the coalition anyway. That is the sheer hypocrisy of this government. It talks about giving pensioners increases when the present Prime Minister said, in a dirty political attitude, 'We shouldn't give them increases,' because they were only going to vote for the coalition. So let us not get too high-handed or uppity about who is doing the best job for pensioners. I believe that every member of parliament wants to look after pensioners. Sometimes you can afford it and sometimes you cannot, but that does not seem to worry this present government.

The coalition certainly has huge concerns with the proposed carbon tax for pensioners and self-funded retirees, because they will be the hardest hit as they are on fixed incomes. There will be a huge hike in electricity bills; we know that. In New South Wales there will be an increase of 18 per cent, and 18 per cent is forecast for South Australia. The problem with this situation is that self-funded retirees on over $50,000, which is not a huge amount of money, will not get any increase whatsoever. (Time expired)

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I would like to congratulate the member for Parramatta for bringing this exceptionally important motion to the House. Secondly, I would like to encourage the New South Wales government to rethink the position that they have taken on this issue. In doing this, I would have to acknowledge that the New South Wales government has blatantly disregarded pensioners living in public housing. I suppose I should also add that the coalition side of politics really has blatant disregard for anyone on a low income and has not delivered to pensioners in the past.

The previous speaker was talking about pension increases. I would have to say that it is the Rudd-Gillard government that has delivered the biggest increase to pensioners since the pension was introduced in this country, and on this side of the House we are extremely proud of that. We are very proud because we know that pensioners have served our country well over the years and, as such, they deserve to have a decent standard of living.

This brings me to those pensioners that are living in public housing in New South Wales. As I have already said, what is happening is a disgrace, a cruel cash grab by the New South Wales government. It demonstrates the difference in the way the Labor Party and the coalition parties think about pensioners and their commitment to pensioners. When the historic increase in the pension came into being, the New South Wales government, then a Labor government, did not include the increase and hike up the rental for people in public housing. They realised that pensioners have been doing it hard and, as such, they recognised the fact that pensioners deserved this one-off increase in their pension to be left out of public housing rent increases. Now how different it is with Barry O'Farrell in government in New South Wales. Instead of accepting a payment that is put in there to actually compensate for the cost increase that pensioners will incur due to the introduction of a price on carbon, what is Barry O'Farrell doing? He is including it as income when calculating rental. I have before me a letter that the state member for Swansea sent out to one of my constituents, who was extremely upset about the tone of this letter. In this letter the state member for Swansea highlights the fact that that money is needed for vital maintenance of public housing. I share with this parliament the fact that the Rudd and Gillard governments' record of investing in public housing is second to none.

Under the previous Howard government public housing was ignored and there was no investment in public housing whatsoever. What the Howard government did was put in place programs and strategies that made it harder for pensioners and did nothing to help the people that were living in public housing. They did nothing to cut the waiting list. They did nothing but cut the amount of money that was being given to the states for public housing. Public housing tenants were ignored. I think the bottom line is that those on the other side of this parliamentary chamber think that public housing tenants are second-rate citizens and they feel that they are not going to vote for them so they can totally disregard them and rip out of them every bit of money they can. I can tell them that the more than 1,800 pensioners that live in public housing in the Shortland electorate deserve better. They deserve better than what Barry O'Farrell is doing, and I will certainly be in there fighting for them to see that they do not have to suffer this sort of—(Time expired)

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This motion that has been moved by the member for is just another example of a Labor government that simply does not get it. They simply do not have a clue. The first part of this motion refers to the so-called 'almost 12 years of inaction by the former Australian coalition government'. Well, something that this current government conveniently and continually overlooks is that when the former coalition government came to office they inherited $96 billion worth of Labor debt. And the former coalition government paid back every single cent of that $96 billion. What often gets forgotten is that they had to pay back the interest as well—close to $40 billion in interest.

So for members of this current Labor government to have the call to come into this chamber and talk about the inaction of the previous coalition government is an absolute disgrace. If it were not for the reckless and wasteful spending of previous Labor governments, the last coalition government would have had an additional $140 billion-plus to spend on the social programs and vital infrastructure we need around the nation. Further, for members of this government to try and make a song and dance about increasing pensions—when what they have had is the four largest deficits in our nation's history and a cumulative $175 billion debt that future generations will have to pay back, and pay back with interest—only further demonstrates how completely clueless this current government is.

This motion also refers to 'historic' increases. Pensioners have certainly experienced historic price increases since this Labor government has come to office. Let us have a look at a few. Since Labor came to power, pensioners have seen health costs increase by 25 per cent. Since Labor came to power, pensioners have seen gas prices increase by 39 per cent. Since Labor came to power, pensioners have seen water and sewerage prices increase by a whopping 59 per cent. Most shamefully of all, since Labor came to power, pensioners have seen electricity prices skyrocket by an incredible 66 per cent, driving many pensioners into fuel poverty, being unable to afford to turn on their heater on a cold winter night—and certainly recently we have had some cold winter nights. In fact, here in Canberra, the last May was the coldest May in over half a century. As for this massive, 66 per cent, increase in electricity prices, this is all before the carbon tax even hits—the carbon tax that the Prime Minister promised before the last election she would not introduce.

The second part of this motion cries crocodile tears about the New South Wales government increasing rents for about 84,000 New South Wales pensioners. But why have the New South Wales government been forced to make this difficult decision to increase housing rents while they try and fix up the mess that they have inherited from the previous state Labor government? It is simple: it is because of the carbon tax. The entire premise of this motion is another example of a government in denial about the effects of the financial burden of the carbon tax.

The New South Wales state government currently provide social housing for around 290,000 people, including 84,000 pensioners, and after 16 years of Labor's mismanagement there are still an additional 56,000 households on the waiting list. These homes provided by the New South Wales government have to be maintained and modernised on an ongoing basis. That is what this Labor government simply does not understand. This ongoing maintenance will be made more and more expensive by the carbon tax. Take every nail, every screw, every can of paint, every bag of cement, every tap handle, every piece of timber, every sheet of plasterboard, every tile and every kitchen upgrade: the carbon tax will make it more and more expensive. That is why, unfortunately, housing rents have got to go up.

But, of course, it is only going to get worse. Under a Labor government we will see the carbon tax go up and up every year, forever. It starts at $23 a tonne but by 2050 it will be $350 a tonne. So if members of this government are truly concerned about the pension the answer is simple: get rid of the carbon tax. (Time expired)

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the appalling actions of the New South Wales coalition government, led by Premier Barry O'Farrell, actions that rip much needed cash out of the hands of struggling pensioners. It was, after all, the Australian Labor Party that first introduced the age pension, and our federal Labor government is proud of the reforms we have delivered since forming government in 2007. In 2009 we delivered the greatest increase to the pension in 100 years. Since this time we have increased the maximum rate by $154 per fortnight for singles and $156 for couples combined. This is definitely helping pensioners with essential items and essential bills such as food, electricity, water and rent.

Pensioners have recently received a lump sum supplement payment from the federal Labor government over the past few weeks of $250 for singles and $380 for couples as part of the household assistance package. Pensioners will also receive a permanent increase to their regular payments in March next year. Altogether, single pensions are increasing by an extra $338 a year and couples are receiving an extra $510 a year combined. The increases Labor has delivered are historic and will continue to assist immensely after years of social welfare neglect by the Howard government.

For pensioners living in public housing in New South Wales, 25 per cent of their pensions go towards rent. Our supplement payment was delivered as such to ensure that it would not be included as income for rent payments. Premier O'Farrell and his coalition government have announced that from March 2013 they will erode federal Labor's pension boost and household assistance by increasing public housing rents, taking money straight out of the pockets of public housing tenants. These are people who we know are already doing it incredibly tough, and Premier O'Farrell should know that. After all, he and his family lived in a New South Wales housing commission flat in the mid-1960s. He knows there is nothing glorious about such living and that those living in public housing need all the help they can get. These are not people who live in excess. If anything, they barely scrape through to make ends meet.

This grubby cash grab by the O'Farrell government means that a single person on the maximum rate of pension will now pay an extra $84.50 a year in public housing rent. Around 84,000 pensioners across the state will be affected by this indefensible increase. The member for Shortland made the point that we have invested so much in public housing. It was neglected in the Howard government years. In my electorate alone it is $30.8 million. A lot of that was for affordable rental housing and a lot of it was to maintain and restore state government properties. I wonder about the New South Wales government already being serial offenders. Wherever we put in funding, they withdraw, and I suppose that is one of the things that has led the member for Parramatta to put this motion forward. We are becoming increasingly frustrated by the continuing neglect of the state government in very important areas. In my region there are 8,500 pensioners living in public housing—people who will have part of their assistance payments taken away.

But pensioners are not the only people under fire. The recent state budget included nothing for improved oncology services for Newcastle's Calvary Mater Hospital, even though a report commissioned by the New South Wales government found that it was in absolutely serious need of additional funding. Cancer patients in the Hunter region are typically waiting around four or five weeks to access treatment that is available the next day in Sydney. That is a shameful snub for our people but it is also tragic.

That is the sort of example that increases our frustration with the O'Farrell government. Again, $93 million has gone into my electorate for Building the Education Revolution improvements to schools, so what does the O'Farrell government do? It reneges on its promise to replace demountable buildings. The Junction Public School, where I was proudly once a teacher and a parent, had so many demountables after the earthquake and they are still there. They have been waiting much too long, and they will continue to wait under this New South Wales O'Farrell government.

The New South Wales government is driving us nowhere, apparently. Not only is it ripping cash out of the pockets of pensioners but also it is ripping cash out of the roads budget by not matching the Pacific Highway funding of the federal government. We all know the O'Farrell government's below-the-belt attacks on workers' compensation will never be forgotten either. With just over a year of government I can only say that the people of my electorate have been very sorely served by the O'Farrell government.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For this government to be standing here and giving itself a big pat on the back for giving pensioners some assistance is the latest in a long line of the world's best examples of hubris. Overbearing pride and arrogance are at the heart of this poor government. The fact is that the government has introduced pension increases, as the member for Parramatta has outlined in her motion. However, it is also a fact that this government has belted pensioners around the head with rules, regulations and extra taxes that have made them worse off than before. It is interesting to note that the compensation for the carbon tax will be taken as income assessment for public housing, so the rents will go up in accordance with income assessment from the carbon tax.

To give the ministers of this government another movie quote that they can use, 'What we have here is failure to communicate.' Let us see them come in here and tell the truth. We have seen the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations laud himself that that side of the House deals in the truth. Look at the millions of dollars used by this government to tell people about the free money they are going to receive. Look at the ads which do not mention the words 'carbon' or 'tax'. Why not come clean and just tell them that you think they will fall for this handout? Why not just tell them in an ad that says: 'Look, the Greens said they would support us if we introduced a carbon tax. It is that simple. It was either that, or they would take their support and go to the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, and tell him that they would help him form government.' And we laughed and we laughed and we laughed. Yes, that was going to happen! Of course they would not.

This was okay by the Prime Minister all along. It was no deal they had to make to remain in government. They knew that to go to the electorate to tell them they would introduce an economy-wide tax on carbon, which would eventually drive electricity prices up so high that solar and wind power would become competitive, would lose them the election. So they stood there and covered the media with great big porky pies straight down the barrel of the camera. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer kept a straight face when asked whether they would introduce a carbon tax. 'No, no, no,' came the response repeatedly in the last week of the campaign.

I was contacted by a self-funded retiree recently. She was listening to a radio interview between Mr Shorten, the Minister for Employment Workplace Relations, and Alan Jones. Mr Jones was asking about the plight of self-funded retirees. The member for Maribyrnong duly assured Mr Jones that he would raise these concerns with the Treasurer. This was some weeks ago. We are now six days away from the introduction of the carbon tax and we have heard nothing from either of these men on the plight of self-funded retirees.

What is the truth? The truth is that compensation for tax is not compensation at all. Extra money paid out by borrowing is not compensation; it is a yoke around the neck of the next generation. This government, and the Labor state governments of New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria, have racked up huge amounts of debt and they have to be repaid. This government and the member for Parramatta simply cannot have it both ways. You cannot continue to borrow against future generations and then decry attempts to rein in spending—much like this government's last budget, where it claims to have cut things to the bone while lifting spending to a new high.

The truth is that this government is attacking pensioners with the world's biggest carbon tax and with red tape and regulation which are making it harder to make ends meet. Let's be very clear about this: the compensation being offered to some stops at the front door, even for those people who are getting it. Who pays compensation to the Townsville City Council for the carbon tax? No-one pays compensation to the Townsville City Council for the carbon tax. No-one pays compensation at all to the shops, building firms or house builders. You have to be in a marginal Labor electorate for industry to be given any sort of assistance by the government. The Leader of the Opposition railed about the dangers being faced by the steel industry. The government has come forward with another $300 million for the steel industry, but only for those places controlled by the AWU. Places in my electorate like Pacific Coast Engineering and Wulguru Steel get nothing, but they have to pass their costs on.

My butcher does not get any compensation for the carbon tax, so the pensioners who go to my butcher because they get good service get nothing back. Those costs have to be passed on. Tropical Ice in my electorate are facing huge increases to their electricity costs. Those costs are passed on to the occupants of public housing. All those small business expenses will be added to the costs of being a pensioner in today's society. Australia has an ageing population and the challenges we face are huge. We need leaders who will provide hope, reward and opportunity to all in this society. (Time expired)

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise today to support the motion by the member for Parramatta. I start by saying how proud I am to be a member of this federal Labor government, which has delivered the most comprehensive and unprecedented increase in the age pension in its 100-year history. We are very proud of this achievement by the federal Labor government.

Since 2009, this government has delivered increases to the maximum pension rate of about $154 per fortnight for singles and about $156 per fortnight for couples combined. Why did we deliver these historic increases? We realised that after nearly 12 long years of neglect by the Howard coalition government action had to be taken. The federal Labor government understood that our pensioners, the people who built this country, needed greater support to make ends meet. We listened to their concerns and addressed them by increasing the pension. It cannot be overstated that these increases are an unprecedented and unrivalled reform that could only have been delivered, like all the great social reforms in this country, by a strong federal Labor government.

The reforms have continued. As part of our household assistance package, pensioners have received a lump sum payment over the past few weeks of $250 for those who are single and $380 for couples. Pensioners will also get a well-deserved permanent boost to their regular payments in March next year. In total, single pensioners are receiving an extra $338 a year and couples are receiving an extra $510 a year combined.

What is the coalition's response to all of that? Of course they are opposed to it. Like everything else, they are opposed to all of these increases and opposed to helping pensioners. What is worse, if we look at the very scary prospect of the coalition getting into government federally, we see that they will take away these increases. In my electorate, that will affect nearly 30,000 pensioners, who will have their pensions ripped away from them by the federal Liberal and National parties if they get into government. Certainly many locals in my area know that is the reality if they get into government.

We see the same degree of callousness from the New South Wales state Liberal-National government. Recently, we had the Premier, Barry O'Farrell, telling pensioners in public housing that he is going to take away their payment by incorporating this well-deserved increase into the calculation of their public housing rents. It is absolutely appalling. It is not enough that in the federal parliament we have the Leader of the Opposition voting against historic increases; now we have his state Liberal-National colleagues ripping this money straight out of pensioners' hands already. In fact, the New South Wales state Minister for Family and Community Services, Pru Goward, in a media release dated 14 June 2012 stated:

… from March 2013 regular fortnightly carbon tax payments will be taken into account for the purposes of calculating heavily subsidised social housing rents.

The New South Wales state government knows full well that the federal government has delivered this increase as a separate pension supplement so that it would not be included when the state government calculated public housing rents. What does this action really mean for pensioners? It means that a maximum rate single pensioner will now pay an extra $84.50 a year in rent. That really is an appalling imposition on people in public housing.

In my area, the local National Party MP, the member for Tweed, Geoff Provest, blatantly denies what he and his government are doing. First of all, he does not listen to the plight of pensioners, who are doing it tough, but then he contradicts his own government. In a statement to the local press on 20 June, Mr Provest completely contradicted Minister Goward and denied that supplementary pension payments would be included in the calculation of public housing rents by stating:

… the lump sum carbon tax compensation payments have not been counted as income for rent purposes.

This is completely untrue and a total lie, but that is what he does—contradicts his government.

It gets worse when we look at the history of a local state member like Geoff Provest and at some of the comments that he made in the New South Wales state parliament prior to his government being elected. On 22 June 2010 in the New South Wales state parliament, the member for Tweed, Geoff Provest, condemned the then state government for doing exactly the same thing and increasing public housing rents. He stated:

There is simply no way the Commonwealth will tolerate a clawback of that one-off pension increase by the states for pensioners in public housing—

which is exactly what they have done. To quote further, and this really is appalling:

Aged pensioners need our support. They do not need people from both sides of this House trying to take their last cent and trying to erode their quality of life.

That is it exactly what he and his government are doing. It shows what a total hypocrite he is that they are now trying to take that money away from people in public housing.

The New South Wales Liberal-National government should hang their heads in shame for what they are doing. It is a dirty, grubby backflip that is impacting on many pensioners in my electorate. We are seeing very harsh actions at the state level, and we would see these actions also at a federal level if the Liberal-National coalition were ever to form federal government. In contrast to all that, the federal Labor government delivered historic increases to pensions. (Time expired)

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For a motion such as this to be put up by a government such as this smacks of hypocrisy, it reeks of negativity and it is unnecessarily unhelpful at a time when this parliament could and should be using its valuable time discussing matters of importance to Australia. Today we should be finding a solution to the illegal boat problem, given that we have already had 4,568 people land on our shores this year and authorities are presently undertaking the grim task of finding up to 90 bodies in the latest tragedy. We should be talking about constructive ways to help the taxpayers of this nation—working families; regional families.

Instead, Labor is trying to muckrake, and the trashing of the New South Wales government continues. In recent weeks, without justification and without warning, federal Labor has gone on an all out attack against the state coalition. Not content with trying to smear the federal opposition at every opportunity, Labor has turned its sights on the Barry O'Farrell-Andrew Stoner Liberal-National government, which has been in office only since March last year after 16 years of the worst, the most inefficient and the most corrupt government this nation has ever known.

Pensioners always need more to keep pace with the increasing costs of living. We did our best as a coalition from 1996 to 2007, yet Labor, by racking up huge debt and deficits, has not helped pensioners since taking over the treasury bench under Kevin Rudd, who was unfairly ousted two years ago yesterday. To suggest that Labor—under either the member for Griffith or, since the 2010 coup, under the member for Lalor—has done better than the Howard years is simply false. The current Prime Minister said Labor was the party of truth sellers. Not so. But do not take my word for it. The member for Parramatta, instead of peddling misleading motions with mischievous intent, ought to be out asking pensioners what they think. Certainly the pensioners I listen to tell me they are doing it tough lately.

This government is in no position to lecture anyone about what the Howard government did or did not do when it has overseen four record budget deficits, when it is looking at net public debt for 2012-13 of $143.2 billion, when the interest on its debt for the next financial year will be $12 billion and when taxes for the coming 12 months will be up by $39 billion.

Australian pensioners—the aged, the disabled, the unemployed and the underemployed—are very nervous right now. They are deeply worried about where this country is heading. They are anxious about how they will afford groceries, petrol or the power bill. They are concerned about how they will pay their rent. And they have reason to be upset.

Federal Labor inherited a massive surplus in 2007 but has sent Australia a long, long way into the red—so much so, it will take years to undo the damage. Conversely, the New South Wales coalition was left with a mess after 16 years of Labor government under Bob Carr, Maurice Iemma, Nathan Rees and Kristina Keneally—16 years of Sussex Street factionalism that saddled New South Wales with an economic malaise the pieces of which no incoming government should have to pick up and repair. But the O'Farrell-Stoner government and its dedicated and enterprising team are getting on with the job of making New South Wales No. 1 again. The state coalition has made some tough calls because it has had to do so. Balancing the books is the coalition way—at both state and Commonwealth levels. Labor governments are renowned for out-of-control spending like there is no tomorrow because they know they will not pay it back—prudent, resourceful coalition governments would do that and the hardworking taxpayers will pick up the tab as they always do.

This discrediting of what the New South Wales coalition is trying to achieve after it was burdened with such a debt, such a big clean-up to do, such an atrocious state of affairs, is typical of this federal Labor government. If it can see a chance to politically point-score, it will take it. Is it doing so because it hopes it will save seats in New South Wales at the next election? Is it doing so because the Sussex Street powerbrokers have demanded it be so? Is it doing so because it likes to meddle with the truth? Probably all of the above. Next Sunday the biggest slug Australian pensioners will face comes into effect. Not surprisingly, Labor cannot say the words 'carbon tax'. Its members call it 'carbon pricing'—because they have to. They have been given their riding orders from Sussex Street and the Greens, to whom they are beholden. The carbon tax will not save the planet but it will make everyday living so much more expensive for the pensioners of the Riverina and pensioners right across Australia. It is a disgrace, and the carbon tax will be repealed when the federal coalition wins office at the next election.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on behalf of the 2,742 pensioners living in public housing in my seat of Banks to support the private member's motion proposed by the member for Parramatta. In September 2009 the Labor government delivered the biggest increase to the pension in its history and delivered a fairer system that made sure the pension kept up with living costs. Since 2009 Labor has increased the maximum rate pension by $154 a fortnight for singles and $156 a fortnight for couples combined. The 22,800 pensioners living in Banks have received a lump sum payment from the federal government over the past few weeks of $250 for singles and $380 for couples. Pensioners will also get a permanent boost to their regular payments in March next year. In total, single pensioners are receiving an extra $338 a year and couples are receiving an extra $510 a year combined. This includes people in the local community receiving age, disability and carer pensions, as well as veterans' income support recipients.

Pensioners in public housing in New South Wales pay 25 per cent of their pension as rent. We have recently heard the announcement by the New South Wales government that it is its intention to increase public housing rents. This federal government, a Labor government, delivered the increase as a separate pension supplement so it would not be included when the state government calculated public housing rents, which has been the accepted practice for many years. The New South Wales Liberal government's decision means a maximum rate single pensioner will now pay an extra $84.50 a year in rent. I have to ask myself where the local state members for Oatley and East Hills were when this decision was proposed. This increase was imposed and, at the same time, they crow about what they have done for their electorates since the election—much of which was misleading because it was Commonwealth money. That is now evident—it has been completed—but they claim credit for it. In reality, when it counted, they could not genuinely assist the vulnerable in their electorates because they were missing in action. We must not forget that it has been the Labor government that have taken the lead in introducing profound social security reform. The conservative side of politics has no such proud history—rather, the contrary.

The reason this is a pernicious grab—theft—by the state Liberal government is that the supplement that has been given to pensioners in public housing is to offset and to compensate for increases that they may pay as a result of the introduction of the carbon tax. It is not a situation where we are looking at increases as a result of CPI. In the past, the net result has been that 25 per cent of those increases are grabbed by the state government in relation to public housing rent. What you are going to have here is a situation where pensioners in public housing are actually going to be worse off because they are going to have the impost of costs that flow from the introduction of the carbon tax—we have said that from day one; we have been honest—but they are also going to cop that 25 per cent increase on that extra money that they have got with the state government increasing their housing rent.

That is theft, in my mind. That is why it was made a supplement. It is not a net increase per se; it is an increase given to them to offset perceived and actual costs in the future. Who pays? The most vulnerable in our community, those on disability support and carers pension, pensioners themselves—not the rich, not the people not in public housing. There are many who are not living in public housing that the state government cannot reach out to. But, you see, this is the Liberal formula: go after the vulnerable and have your middle-class, upper-middle-class and business welfare. That is what makes this increase by the state government so pernicious. We are not talking about a CPI increase that is flowing on to pensioners; we are talking about a supplement given to them to compensate, and they are copping it in the neck on top. The state Liberal government should desist.

What else did they do it in relation to the budget? Ten thousand Public Service jobs are to go. That is also the future under the current opposition at a federal level if they actually get government. This is a portent of what will come in the future. (Time expired)

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose this motion and the absolute nonsense we have just heard from the member for Banks in relation to the so-called 'theft' of money from vulnerable people in New South Wales. First of all I want to outline in response that the cost of this to the average person affected would be between $1.50 and $2 per week in public housing rents, already heavily subsidised by the taxpayer. By the government's own admission, the government has increased pension payments to $154 per fortnight and $156 per fortnight. What costs is the member for Banks referring to when he says that was to subsidise an increase in costs? It is completely disingenuous of this government. They are putting in a carbon tax which will increase prices—in New South Wales the forecast for increase in rents is 1.7 per cent, which would be a cost of $50 million over four years to the New South Wales government. If the federal government did not understand that that cost would be passed on, not just by government but by every industry sector, every small business, every operation in this country, why are they increasing compensation payments?

These pension increases are not some historic reform—this motion says 'historic pension reforms'. This did not come out of the blue. These increases in the pension are to subsidise people for the cost of the carbon tax. That is what these are for. They are not for any other reason. The 1.7 per cent increase in rents has to be paid for by somebody. It is not going to be subsidised by the taxpayer because, as the New South Wales government has outlined, they have a program to improve public housing in New South Wales—to increase the number and quality of available places and ensure that more people can access it. Under this budget there will be more private rent subsidies, with around $50 million of support; $19 million for 21,000 householders to access affordable tenancies in the private rental market; and $134 million to provide specialist homelessness services. The government wants to come in here and pretend that the state government should not pass on the costs that the federal government have imposed on them. That is completely unrealistic. It is not happening in any sector.

In the electricity sector, for example, we know New South Wales prices have increased by 18 per cent—electricity bills this year are up 18 per cent. The estimate, conservatively, is 8.9 per cent because of a carbon tax. Almost half of the increase in prices from 1 July is because of the carbon tax. If it is good enough for the electricity sector and every other sector to pass on and the government to say, 'We are increasing your pension by this much to pay for it,' then they have got to say that 1.7 per cent in the matter of rents is going to be passed on by the state government as well. It is going to happen all around the country. It is completely disingenuous for this government to suggest otherwise.

It is disingenuous for the member for Banks to come in here and say, 'We've been honest from day one.' 'Honest from day one' prior to the last federal election would have been for the Treasurer or the Prime Minister to look into the camera and say, 'We are introducing a carbon tax that will push up the price of public housing rents by 1.7 per cent.' That would have been honest. Instead we heard from this government: 'We will not be introducing a carbon tax,' and, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' That was the message before the election.

Wayne Swan said it was absolute nonsense that we would be introducing a carbon tax prior to the election. Yet they bring it in, and costs will be ratcheted up across the economy as a deliberate result of their carbon tax and their policy. Then they have the hide to come to this chamber and put a motion up like this saying: 'People are going to pay more. This is outrageous! Oh, isn't this terrible?' It is a direct result of the government's own policy that these vulnerable people will be paying more.

For the first time in New South Wales we have terms like 'energy poverty' coming into use across Sydney. I know that some of the members sitting opposite on the backbench understand what I am talking about. We have energy poverty coming into Australia because of the mismanagement of our public utilities, the mismanagement of government enterprises and, now, the world's biggest and most punishing carbon tax.

If the member for Parramatta wanted to really do something to assist Australian pensioners then she would propose, of course, standing by the member for Griffith, abolishing the carbon tax and moving to an emissions trading scheme or another model. That is what the member for Parramatta would do—not stand by this failed government with its failed carbon tax. The New South Wales government is to be commended for being realistic and for keeping their finances on a sustainable footing. In particular, the Minister for Families and Community Services is to be commended for doing her job to ensure that all vulnerable people in New South Wales get a fair deal. Everything has to be paid for. Governments can only continue to provide services on a sustainable footing. The carbon tax is an unsustainable tax for Australia. It ought to be removed, and vulnerable people will suffer if it is not.

Debate adjourned.