Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. Pensioner couples received $33,000 in income. Electricity, insurance and rates in the North are now over $10,000 a year, whilst average accommodation charges are $17,000. This leaves two people with $3,000 each to live on. Would the Treasurer not agree a primage gap-neutral charge of 10 per cent on all imports—$36 billion a year—would provide jobs for Australians and $12,000 a year for every pensioner couple? Further, would he agree with the supply land cheaply initiative and its proponents, an Oxford professor and a bright, innovative thinker named Malcolm Turnbull?

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Three seconds to spare!

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A 45-second special there, Mr Speaker! Thank you very much to the member for his question. Can I start by saying that the government does acknowledge the very difficult circumstances faced by pensioners in this country. The pension is not a generous payment. It is a welfare payment to support people who, for whatever reason, have not been able to put themselves in a position where they are able to support themselves in their retirement. The pension, which is the biggest of the social service outlays, is an incredibly important payment.

In last year's budget what we did with the pension was to change the assets test, which would mean that those who are on lower levels of assets, and particularly those who were previously only receiving a part-pension, would now be receiving a full pension. Those pensioners who are on the lowest level of assets have been supported by those on this side of the House for almost two years. Those opposite actually opposed that change, only to be brought to their senses just before the election, in one of their other backflips which went along with the schoolkids bonus and many other things.

The pension is important. It needs to be sustainable and it needs to be supported. But I would not agree with the member's suggestion that the proposal he puts forward would lead to an increase in their incomes, because what he is suggesting is to lift the prices of imports in this country. If you lift the prices of imports in this country then what you are doing is increasing the costs of producing things in this country, because our businesses make those imports. If you are going to increase the costs on business in this country, whether it is by that measure or by increasing taxes on business, like those opposite want to do, what you end up doing is costing incomes and costing jobs.

On this side of the House we believe that export trade delivers the prosperity, the income and the growth that deliver jobs. In the last 12 months there was 9.6 per cent growth in exports—the strongest export performance since the Sydney Olympics. So our view, with great respect to the member, is that you have to drive your prosperity and drive your incomes by ensuring that the Australian economy is competitive, that businesses can compete, that they can employ people and that they can drive the incomes of their employees to lift real wages, which will lift living standards for all Australians.

I thank the member for his question and for his concern about these issues, particularly on the matter of pensioners. I know the Minister for Social Services will be only too happy to talk more about the things we are doing to support pensioners and particularly those with low assets.