Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Energy Assistance Payment and Pensioner Concession Card) Bill 2017 that this government has introduced to this place. We will support the amendment moved by the member for Jagajaga. This is a bill introduced at the same time that we see inequality at a 75-year high, when wage growth has stalled to an all-time low and when energy costs continue to skyrocket. A matter of minutes ago, the minister came into this place to strip away money from seniors and pensioners who have worked hard their whole lives only to be treated like dirt by this government. We just heard the minister come in here and want to be congratulated for giving a one-off payment but taking away a lifetime payment to many pensioners and seniors in our community.

Let's not be fooled. While Labor will be supporting the one-off energy assistance payment to pensioners, the government has today confirmed and introduced by law that they want to cut the energy supplement. That is a permanent payment which is worth much more to pensioners. Put simply, what we have just witnessed a matter of minutes ago is the government giving on one hand and taking much, much more on the other hand. This is not a win for pensioners.

On this side of the House, Labor recognises that many Australians and seniors are doing it tough. Time and time again, what we have seen is the government making it harder for pensioners to make ends meet and harder for working Australians. Whether it be cutting penalty rates, hiking university fees, the Medicare freeze or a whole range of projects and programs in the budget that do not help pensioners, what we are seeing today is a minor commitment to pensioners but a major cut to thousands of pensioners across Australia. We know that the one-off payment in the legislation that we are debating today will mean a payment of $75 to pensioners, but we will also see as a result of the legislation introduced into this place before I spoke a cut of $375 each and every year to pensioners as part of axing the energy assistance payment.

I mentioned before that I know many seniors and pensioners are doing it tough across the country, but this is in particular for those who rely on assistance from the government to help pay for their skyrocketing energy bills. An analysis by the University of Melbourne's Australian-German Climate and Energy College earlier this year found that the average wholesale electricity price doubled to $134 a megawatt hour last summer, compared with $65 to $67 in the two summers during 2013 and 2014. Yet the government then sees fit to cut $375 to pensioners while energy costs continue to skyrocket.

I have to ask: are those opposite in the same communities that we all walk around in? The same shopping centres that we visit? Or in the same pubs and clubs—all of those areas? Go into one of those clubs in my electorate—the mighty Blue Fin Fishing Club or the Goodna Services Club—and said to a group of pensioners who might be having a nice lunch together, perhaps after having a social activity, and say: 'Do you know what? We're going to give you a $75 payment but on the same day that we do that we're going to introduce legislation to take $375 from you.' I can say that that would not go down very well in my community, and in every single electorate in Australia that would be the same.

So what is it with this government? Wage growth is at an all-time low; their answer is to cut wages. Inequality is at an all-time high; their answer is to cut support. And energy costs continue to rise and their answer is to cut the energy assistance payments. Really, all you can do is to shake your head and say, 'Why won't this government actually hear what is going on in Australia?'

Let's be clear about what this government is proposing with this legislation. There is a one-off payment which is merely a shallow attempt to distract Australians from the fact that this Liberal government wants to cut the energy supplement. Australian pensioners deserve much better than this. The Prime Minister and those opposite will not get away with pulling the wool over the eyes of Australians. Offering a one-off energy assistance payment of $75 to single pensioners while attempting to take $365 a year from single pensioners by removing the energy supplement to new pensioners is not good government; it is deceitful government.

A one-off $75 payment is not the same as $365 assistance every year to help pensioners keep up with increasing energy costs: $75 does not equal $365. The Prime Minister has shown us time and time again that he does not 'get' fairness. I have said it in this place before and in the other place—in the Federation Chamber—that we hear the government talk a lot about fairness. We hear them put that out in materials and in advertising, but we know that they do not believe in fairness. That was the Liberal Party spending $200,000 to get a focus group to tell them that they needed to use the word fairness in their budget!

Only a few weeks ago I was able to host the shadow minister for families and social services and the member for Jagajaga at a seniors forum, where this exact bill was being discussed by members of the community—the issues of cost of living, of energy cost and of people finding it really tough to make ends meet. We met at the Jindalee Bowls Club with Centenary Suburbs residents. Over 200 residents were out in force to make it very clear to me as their federal member and to the shadow minister that they found the rising costs of energy, when every dollar counts, to be a huge impact. Cuts like those that the minister just introduced, whilst we are seeing a once-off payment, simply will not make up that shortfall. The Jindalee Bowls Club is also home to Centenary Meals on Wheels. They do a great job serving pensioners and seniors. We know that the funding for Meals on Wheels is also under question and that there is a lot of pressure from service providers who are worried about the government's commitment.

So, looking at this package and the amendment the shadow minister has moved, and going through those items one by one, in condemning the government's cuts to Australian pensioners we need to look back only a very short time. In that horrific budget in 2014 the government tried to cut pension indexation and leave pensioners $80 a week poorer over 10 years. We remember when the Liberals tried to reset the deeming rate thresholds, changes that would have negatively impacted half a million part pensioners. And who could forget the change to the assets test earlier this year, when the goalposts were shifted on hundreds of thousands of pensioners who carefully planned for their retirement? Almost 100,000 retirees lost their pension, and many more had their payments cut.

This bill, at the same time as trying to pull the wool over the eyes of older Australians, also tries to clean up the mess left by the former Treasurer, Mr Hockey. When the changes to the assets test were introduced, the Treasurer promised that those who lost their pension as a result of the change would be able to keep their concession card. He said:

… anyone who currently has a Pensioner Concession Card will continue to receive a concession card that provides the same benefits …

That was false. That simply did not happen. Instead, former pensioners were issued with Health Care Cards and Commonwealth Senior Health Care Cards, which did not provide the same benefits. For example, without a pensioner concession card, former pensioners were not able to access vital government funded hearing services, and different concessions were applied from state to state. The government did not even bother talking to the states and territories about maintaining these concessions. I know that in my own community pensioner groups rallied, came together to make very clear their position on this breach of faith, this lack of trust that the government thought was the right way to go. We know that fundamentally the Australian community rejected it. Who can forget that famous night in 2014 when the then Treasurer in this government was putting the axe to pensioners, to those most vulnerable? He cranked up the music in his office and said it was the best night of his life. Well, it was the worst night of the lives of pensioners and seniors in our community. Either the former Treasurer forgot to include the maintenance of eligibility for those concessions in his budget or he just did not understand the difference between the two types of cards. Regardless, it goes to show that this government does not care about low-income Australians. Nor does this government care about middle-income Australians. We know from their actions and their policies that their priority is looking after the top end of town and those in big business. On top of all of this, if the government had its way, a retiree who dreamed of having an overseas trip would have their pension cut after just six weeks of travel.

The Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Social Services have all said that the only reason these cuts were not in the budget is not that they had a change of heart, not that they listened to the Australian community, not because they would go out to seniors forums like the ones I hosted with shadow minister Jenny Macklin a couple of weeks ago and the shadow age minister last Friday. They did not do any of that. They did not go out and consult. They did not actually listen. They said: 'We couldn't get them through. We couldn't pass these cuts—not because we didn't believe in them and not because we don't think they're great. We couldn't pass them, so we junked them.' They still believe in them. If they had the numbers, they would pass them. If they could, they would lower the living standards of those on low incomes; they would lower the payments to those who rely on them the most.

This is not an ideological shift; this is just a sheer pragmatic shift by a government more worried about their own skin than worried about those who rely on these payments. These cuts are not gone. The ministers in this place, the ministers at the table and the backbenchers in this chamber still want to deliver them. No-one has publicly gone out and said: 'We got it wrong. We shouldn't have gone so hard. We shouldn't have gone so fast.' I have seen all of this tragedy play out over the past couple of years in my community. But pensioners, seniors and others in the community rallied together and made sure that those sorts of cuts were not delivered.

We also know that one of those measures, delivered by then Treasurer Hockey and the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, was to increase the pension age to 70. This would mean that Australians would have to work longer than anybody else in the world. I know the government like to be congratulated and like to think this is a fair budget. They go out and say, 'This is being well received in the electorate.' I do not know what planet they are on. You only need to look at the messaging coming out of the community from the nonprofit sector. If they bothered to leave this place and go to the bowls clubs and the service organisations in my electorate and meet with pensioners and seniors groups, they would hear a completely different message, where people in our community are doing it tough and need support. That is what the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, does every day of the week, criss-crossing the country going to town hall meetings week in, week out, listening to Middle Australia, listening to regional Australia and ensuring that pensioners and seniors, particularly, get the fair go they deserve.

As I mentioned earlier regarding this bill and these changes, I was privileged to host the shadow minister for ageing, the member for Franklin, in my electorate last Friday. We visited two aged-care facilities and retirement locations in my electorate—a great new location in Springfield, and Sinnamon Village, a wonderful retirement village and nursing home facility at Jindalee. We heard from residents and staff about the enormous pressure and strains that those in aged care are under, particularly seniors who are relying on government support.

So, whilst this bill is welcome for a one-off hit, a one-off payment, it does not go far enough and it simply does not undo the damage that this government has done to seniors and aged people in our community. They deserve dignity, they deserve respect, but more importantly they deserve a government that is on their side. This government has proved time and time again that it is not on the side of senior Australians.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As previous speakers on this side of the House have said, we agreed to support this bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Energy Assistance Payment and Pensioner Concession Card) Bill 2017, because it is some evidence that the government is trying to help those on fixed incomes and those on the smallest incomes in our electorates. But we need to make sure that the government is held to account for what is happening and remind people about the con the government is trying to put forward in the budget.

First off, the one-off energy assistance payment of $75 a week for singles to help with their energy bills is welcome. Any good MP who, when they are not in this place, is out there talking to their constituents and holding their listening posts and their street stalls would know that the cost of energy is a major concern. We are about to hit winter. In regional Victorian areas like Bendigo, winter is particularly cold. The energy policy crisis that we are in because we are exporting too much of our own gas is putting pressure on the energy market and therefore driving up power bills. So $75 per single and $62.50 for each member of a couple is welcome because it will give some people and some households relief with their energy bills this year.

I should say, however, that this is not a silver bullet solution. This is not a long-term solution to the energy policy crisis we have in our country. It is a one-off payment. They are saying, 'Here's a little bit of cash to distract you from the fact that we have no long-term plan to address skyrocketing energy bills.' At the same time as giving a small relief to households, they are taking from those who are about to come onto these sorts of payments. What the government have also put forward in their budget is to scrap the energy supplement for new pensioners and people on new payments. So whilst this one-off payment is good news for our aged pensioners, our disability support pensioners, our parenting payment single recipients and our veterans' payments recipients, it is a one-off. People are not fools. They say: 'Great, that helps me this year, but that doesn't help me next year. It doesn't help me in the long term.'

My electorate, the Bendigo electorate, is like many regional electorates. We have a significant number of people on fixed incomes or on some form of government payments. We have a large proportion of people on the aged pension. We have single parents and a number of people on the disability pension. One pensioner said to me on the weekend: 'The cost for me turning on my power is the same as for my next-door neighbour. Whilst my pensioner discount does help, there is a point where it doesn't help because our bills have gone up so much.' Bills are skyrocketing and $75 will help, but it will not really get on top of the massive increases they are paying.

The other part of this bill that I need to draw people's attention to is where the government is trying to clean up a mistake they made back when the former Treasurer in this place made a bit of a mistake on budget night. Now we are seeing the reinstatement of the pensioner concession card. This is for people who lost their pensioner concession card because of the new pensioner asset test that began on 1 January 2017.

I think what is really frustrating about the fact that the government has only brought this forward now is that since that budget night when the former Treasurer promised this and up until people lost their pensioner concession card—a few years now—people on this side of the House have been saying: 'What are you doing about this? Because of the pension asset test changes people will lose this concession card,' and the government did nothing. The government did nothing when pensioner groups got active about this to say: 'We will lose it. There is a significant proportion of people in our community who will lose this pension concession card.' Still, the government did nothing about this. It was not until people lost it that they went, 'Oh, this has created a problem.' It is the growing mantra of this government: pretend it is not an issue, say it is not an issue, stick your head in the sand about the issue, and only when people start to complain go, 'Okay, maybe we need to look at this.'

The government estimates that approximately 92,000 pensioners lost the concessions card in this period alone. However, as people's retirement income starts to grow because we have had superannuation and as fewer people will qualify for the pension, in the future there would have been more pensioners not eligible for this card. It actually challenges the government to rethink their entire approach towards retirement income. I am proud, as all Labor members are, that it was a Labor government that first introduced compulsory superannuation. The vision was that throughout somebody's working life they would save enough through their super contributions to have a decent retirement through their own retirement savings. That was first introduced in 1992 by former Prime Minister Paul Keating, and it was a great reform. It was something that working people, that the unions and that Labor had long championed.

For Australian workers to get to a place where they have enough to retire on, they need to have had a working life of superannuation savings. We are talking about my generation. I started working in 1994. We hope that when people now in their 30s retire—as is the government's wish, when they are 70, but at the moment if they retire at 67—they will have earned enough in their working life to have enough in superannuation to retire. If we acknowledge that it will take a generation of workers to get to that point, for those who between now and then, unless they are full age pensioners, there will be a sliding scale of people who will have a mix of super and pension.

The problem in the approach of this government is that they want to knock out people who may have a mix—they want to force a group of pensioners back to the poverty line. It has been well established by a number of groups, by research, that the level of single pension that people are trying to survive on is well below the poverty line. We have older Australians currently living in poverty. Our pension rate is too low. People may have been trying to supplement their pension with their super to get themselves above that point, but this government has taken the axe to them and cut back the assets test to say, 'No, we think you are millionaires and you all must live below the poverty line.' It was purely a budget save, and I am very disappointed, like many people in my electorate, that the Greens got on board with this idea from the government, that they backed the government in. The Greens, the Liberals and the Nats all said at the time that millionaires should not get pensions. What they did not talk about were the teachers and the nurses; they did not talk about the people who worked in trades who were not millionaires—they had some superannuation savings because of collective agreements that they had negotiated, but not enough to provide them with what could be considered a decent retirement income. They are the people who lost when this government changed the pension assets test.

We do welcome the fact that at least this group of pensioners will get their concession card back. The cost of services in the regions is expensive. Pensioners in my part of the world do enjoy their discounts on public transport—every year the state of Victoria sends them a couple of free tickets for V/Line services to go to Melbourne. They can use them when they like—it could be for medical appointments or it could be to catch up with grandchildren; it is their chance to go to Melbourne. What is really frustrating about what the government did, without consultation with the states, is that when they stopped issuing the card there was a knock-on effect. People came to speak to us about the fact that they lost discounts on their rates notices, and then councils had to scramble to see what they could do. We had people come and say that they lost discounts on all forms of public transport, and concessions on their energy bills. The government just did not think through the consequences of scrapping this card for a group of people. The frustrating thing is that it has taken this long for the government to realise their error and reinstate the concession card. It is like the government do not trust people when organisations tell them what the impact of their decisions will be. They wait for the impact to happen—they do not trust the organisations, they do not trust their own department and, they do not trust people in the community when they come up and say, 'When this kicks in on 1 January, I will be affected.' That is what is disappointing: the government, knowing full well the impact of scrapping the concession card on this group of pensioners, did nothing, until now, to fix it. I mentioned that this government's once-off payment is not the same as $365 of assistance every year to help pensioners keep up with the increasing energy costs. It is not just pensioners that they choose to scrap this energy supplement for; it is people who are on Newstart and people who are on youth allowance. This government, again, is forcing the most vulnerable in our community, who need our support, further into poverty.

These are the people who are seeking support from our welfare and relief agencies. In my own area of Bendigo, our welfare agencies and emergency relief agencies report a 40 per cent increase in people seeking help over the last financial year. This year, so far, it is growing. They state that the reasons for this are the cost of energy bills, the costs of car registration and insurance, and, if those in need of help have children, the cost of children going to school. The agencies are saying that single pensioners, in particular, are doing it incredibly tough—people who are just trying to get by. Without food hampers—without emergency relief food—they literally would not survive. Max at the UnitingCare at Kangaroo Flat does an amazing job in reaching out to this group. He has people who rock up to say, 'I've just spent all of my pension on my rent and on my energy bills, can you help me out? Max is not alone. There is also UnitingCare in Forest Street, Bendigo and St Vincent de Paul in Bendigo. These organisations, every single day, are supporting people with food hampers and emergency relief, because people are being crippled by the cost of living.

This is so typical of this government—caring about the top end of town whilst putting pressure on people on the smallest of incomes. Coming up on 1 July, we have a government which will give millionaires a tax cut—$16,400 a year—while standing by and doing nothing to stop penalty rates being cut. Retail workers could lose up to $6,000 a year, or $77 a week. It may not sound like a lot to a millionaire or a government backbencher, with what they earn, but to someone on the smallest of incomes it is a lot. It is a government that continues to do nothing to support those on the lowest incomes. One pensioner said to me: '$75? Really, that's it? That will help pay a fraction of my bill. A once off—is it a bribe? Are they trying to get me to be quiet?' People will see this for what it is. Whilst we support it and welcome it, it is not enough. The government is really out of touch with those on the smallest of incomes. It is really out of touch with people who need ongoing and continuous help. It is a government that is caught up in its own rhetoric and thinks that people will be taken as fools.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak about the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Energy Assistance Payment and Pensioner Concession Card) Bill 2017. We will be supporting this bill, but we really want to put on the record that on this side of the House—not just us, but our Australian pensioners—we are sick and tired of seeing pensioners being used as political footballs at every budget. It is unfair to treat people in this way. Our pensioners in our community have paid their taxes all their lives. They have worked hard most of their lives in jobs that were labour intensive—because of the technology in the days when they started work. Some have even fought in wars to protect this country. They have built the foundations that we live our lives on today, and I think we live pretty good lives here in Australia. We owe it all to the generation before us. We owe it to them because they built this country, and now we treat them with great disrespect. Also, these are the people who put in place, a generation before us, our workers' rights—the rights that we take for granted. We see many other things that affect the hard-earned work that they have done, including the rights that they put in place during their working lives. We see penalty rates being cut, for example. They may not be affected directly because they are now on a pension, but it irks them and it upsets them because they think of the standards that they had when they worked and they look at the standards that our workers have to put up with today. All these things affect these people.

In my electorate I speak to pensioners. I have one of the oldest electorates in the country. Over 20 per cent are 65 or over. So I speak with lots of pensioners on a regulator basis, and they tell me that they are sick of being used as political footballs, especially by this government, at every budget. They are made to feel like they are a burden, welfare recipients, a cost and a nuisance, which is not correct, because these people built the foundations that we live our lives on today. Certainly on this side of the House we will not have it. They have contributed to our society and to our economy, and they deserve better. So, while we welcome the fact that we will get the very, very modest one-off payment that is outlined in this bill, it certainly does not compensate for the cuts and the hardships that pensioners have had to endure under this government over the last four years.

We remember in 2013 in the lead-up to the election when the member for Warringah, the former Leader of the Opposition and then Prime Minister, made a promise that there would be 'no cuts to pensioners', and 'no changes to the pension'. What did we see in the very first budget? A whole range of cuts. I will go through them now. The Abbott-Turnbull government's record on pensions is nothing short of a disgrace when it comes to our pensioners. In every budget since they have been in government, they have handed down their proposed cuts to the pension. And that is four budgets in a row—not one; not a one-off; not two; not three—at every single budget there has been some detrimental effect on our pensioners. This government has no shame when it comes to doing over our pensioners.

While they are doing this, at the very same time, they are proposing a $65 billion tax cut for the top end of town, the richest people of Australia. Yet our most vulnerable and those that have built the foundations that we live our lives on are enduring cuts. I do not see how that is fair. We have a government that throws the word 'fairness' around continually. You will hear it during question time, in speeches and in press conferences. They must be tracking it through polling that the word 'fair' or 'fairness' resonates well. You hear it continually. But what is so fair about cutting from pensioners and giving a $65 billion cut to Australia's richest people? There is nothing fair in that—absolutely nothing. Not only does the Turnbull government want to raise the pension age to 70, he is making it the oldest pension age in the developed world. Where are the jobs anyway where these people will work? And how do we expect people, especially people who work in labour intensive jobs, to keep on going until they are 70?

They also want to scrap the energy supplement—and this is the heart of this bill—making pensioners, carers and Newstart recipients $550 a year worse off. And this comes on top of the harsh cuts to pensioners as a result of the government's new assets test that we saw earlier. They are constantly nipping away at the eligibility for pensioners. With the energy supplement making pensioners, carers and Newstart recipients $550 a year worse off—can you tell me: how can that be fair? This government is hanging our pensioners out to dry. They do not deserve to be treated so poorly.

Schedule 1 of the energy assistance payment—let's have a look at it. What is Schedule 1 of the energy assistance payment? I will tell you what it is. It is just a smokescreen. It is a smokescreen to distract us from the fact that this government still wants to abolish the energy supplement. They still want to abolish the energy supplement which assists people with their energy bills. We know that energy bills have quadrupled since they have been in government. They have quadrupled in terms of the costs of supplying energy to your house.

The government will carry on about the carbon tax and a whole range of other things, but what have they put in place? What have they done to ensure that our pensioners have some form of assistance and to ensure that we have a market out there that keeps the prices down? They have done nothing about it. They are happy to bang on about coal and a whole range of other things, but energy prices have gone up—which is hurting our pensioners—because the government have not acted to keep us up to date with renewables and a whole range of other things that are taking place around the world in markets and industries that we are falling behind in.

If the government were really interested in ensuring that energy prices were down, we would be looking at a different mechanism to ensure that there are more players in the market with a mix of renewables and a whole range of other energy suppliers in order to have a good cap on prices so pensioners in my electorate and everyone else's electorates are not hurt. The government will not get away with pulling the wool over the eyes of our pensioners. They can see through this and they are already raising it with me and with other colleagues. As I said, these pensioners were hardworking once upon a time.

In this bill, the government are offering a one-off energy assistance payment of $75—a one-off of $75—and at the same time are taking away $365 a year from single pensioners by removing the energy supplement to new pensioners. My maths might not be 100 per cent but a one-off $75 payment is not the same as a $365 in assistance every year to help pensioners to keep up with increasing energy costs. They are offering a $75 payment and what was in place was $365 in assistance every year to help pensioners with the increasing energy costs—and, by the way, the government have done noting to ensure that energy costs do not keep on rising. These sums just do not add up. As I said in other speeches, it is like setting a fire, being the arsonist, lighting the match, and then calling triple 0 and getting the fire brigade and wanting a pat on the back because you are a hero. Well, it does not work that way. Our pensioners will see through this and they will vote accordingly at the next election.

We on this side will oppose the government's attempt to remove the energy supplement from the most vulnerable Australians who will be affected by this. The 2017 budget confirms that the government still want to cut this energy supplement. The Prime Minister likes to say that he is all about fairness—and I spoke about that—but there is no way that there is anything fair about this. They talk about fairness, but at the same time that they are hitting the most vulnerable people—cutting from them; taking away from them—they are proposing, pushing and trying to bully through every day that $65 billion tax cut to Australia's highest earners, richest people and big businesses that pay very little tax to begin with. If the Prime Minister really cared about the living expenses of vulnerable Australian, he would no be trying to abolish this energy supplement. The payment will be $75 for singles and $62 each for each member of a couple.

Schedule 2 provides for the reinstatement of the pensioner concession cards. I have to say that the government's previous attempt to get rid of the concession cards was very mean-spirited. But, thanks to the efforts of Australian pensioners around the country who lobbied their MPs—and I suspect many on the other side—the government has been forced to reinstate it. The government has been forced to overturn a very cruel measure that it had in place, after failing to keep then Treasurer Joe Hockey's promise in his budget where he said that no-one would lose their Commonwealth pensioner card. This shows that when we work together—and Australians do work together—we can actually achieve results. Many, many pensioners in my electorate have written to me and spoken to me at street corner meetings and at forums that we had on this issue to tell me just how unhappy they were about their concession cards.

When the changes to the pension asset test began on 1 January 2017 many pensioners ceased to be eligible for their payment and they also lost their concession card. I am really happy to say that almost 1,000 pensioners in my electorate of Hindmarsh who lost their pension following this government's asset test change will get their concession card back through this bill. I am very pleased about that, because many of them wrote to me. I received many emails and had many discussions and phone conversations about this. Through the campaign that they ran, they have managed a good result.

It certainly does not make up, though, for all the other cuts that they have to endure. Let us face it: this government is only doing this as a result of pressure that we on this side of the House and pensioners have exerted on them. The let us not forget that, when the changes to the asset test were introduced, the then Treasurer Joe Hockey promised that those who lost their pension as a result of the change would be able to keep their concession card. That turned out to be a furphy, didn't it? To quote the words of the previous Treasurer Joe Hockey,:

… anyone who currently has a Pensioner Concession Card will continue to receive a concession card that provides the same benefits …

Was that true? Certainly not. Instead, former pensioners were issued with healthcare cards and Commonwealth senior healthcare cards, which did not provide the same benefits.

I was asked by the media yesterday about the polls. My response was that you do not have to be a rocket scientist to know that this government is travelling so badly. When you have a senior member of the government promising that Commonwealth concession cards will not be taken away and then they get taken away, it is no wonder they are in a state of disarray. For example, without that pensioner concession card former pensioners are not able to access vital government funded hearing services, and we all know that the minimum cost would be around $3,000 for hearing devices from different states. It depends on where you are. The loss of the pensioner concession card is a very cruel double blow to many former pensioners with modest incomes. I am very pleased that pressure from this side and pressure from pensioner groups around Australia has changed the government's proposal. The government must think Australia has a very short memory. As I said, I am sure these people have not forgotten, and you cannot pull the wool over their eyes.

I remember in 2014 when the government tried to cut pension indexation and leave pensioners $80 a week poorer over 10 years. This is the stuff that has been happening while at the same time they are still pushing that $65 billion tax cut for the high-end of town. I also remember when the government tried to reset the deeming rate threshold—changes that would have negatively impacted half a million part pensioners around the country. These are not people on wealthy incomes; they are part pensioners. They rely on a part pension and a bit of modest savings that they have. I also remember when this government changed the assets test and shifted the goalposts on hundreds of thousands of pensioners who had carefully planned their retirement. All of a sudden they had the goalposts changed. At that point 100,000 retirees lost their part pension or pension and many more had their payments reduced—many hundreds in my the electorate, who lobbied me and still do.

God forbid for a retiree to dare to aspire to an overseas trip. If the PM has his way, their payments will be cut after six weeks overseas. It is even worse for migrant pensioners or people who have settled in Australia from overseas. If you are a pensioner who was not born in Australia and you wanted to visit family and friends overseas, you pension will be reduced in line with the time that you have lived in Australia as though your contribution was worth less. They say these cuts are gone for good. (Time expired)

Pat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is good to have an opportunity to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Energy Assistance Payment and Pensioner Concession Card) Bill 2017 and to join with my Labor colleagues in highlighting and condemning the appalling record of the coalition relating to their treatment of the pension. I am proud to be a member of the Labor Party—a Labor Party that, through the great Prime Minister Andrew Fisher introduced the old-age pension over 100 years ago. The age pension is a compact with senior Australians that says that we commit to giving you a dignified retirement. It is a compact that says that we commit to ensuring that every Australian has the ability to retire and live their final years in some dignity and not be left to starve on the streets, as still occurs in some other nations around the world today. It is a compact that the Liberal and National parties do not understand. It is a compact that they repeatedly attempt to break, and without the Labor Party holding them to account they will try and break it at every opportunity.

Before discussing the energy assistance payment, I want to highlight the asset test changes introduced by the Liberals and Nationals, which is related to the concession card aspect of this bill. This change cut the pension for 330,000 elderly Australians. Approximately 3,000 of my constituents in Shortland had their pensions reduced or cancelled, and one quarter of the residents in Shortland are over the age of 60. So these changes had a very significant impact on the electorate that I represent. I am very proud to have voted against this legislation, to have voted against the pensions asset test change that cut the pension for 3,000 of my constituents. This policy shifted the goalposts for tens of thousands of pensioners who had in good faith planned for their retirement, and nearly 100,000 retirees lost their pension completely. The government should know that my constituents who were affected by these changes are still incredibly angry about this issue—and I know this, because I have met with them and seen how distressed and upset they are. In fact, at every single seniors expo I hold in Shortland, this is still raised as a massive issue.

These changes are even worse because of the direct betrayal of a promise the government had previously made relating to the pensioner concession charge. When these asset changes were introduced, Joe Hockey stated very clearly that those who lost their pension as a result of the change would be able to keep their concession cards. He said:

Anyone who currently has a Pensioner Concession Card will continue to receive a concession card that provides the same benefits …

This was a blatant lie. As I said previously, my constituents are very angry about it. So Labor welcomes the provision in this bill which provides for the reinstatement of the pensioner concession card for those who ceased to be eligible for the card as a result of the asset test changes on 1 January this year. But it should be noted that the government has only done this with the utmost reluctance and only after concerted pressure by pensioner groups and the Labor Party. This is another clear example of how out of touch the Prime Minister and his government are with the realities of the day-to-day lives of pensioners, retirees and, indeed, all ordinary Australians. As I have noted previously, given the background of the Prime Minister and his substantial wealth, this is not surprising, but it is still no excuse to attack the living standards and quality of life of the pensioners that I represent in this place.

Let there be no mistake that the government is cutting the pension. The introduction of the energy assistance payment is a blatant attempt by the Liberals and Nationals to disguise the fact that they are cutting the pension by abolishing the energy supplement. This bill provides a one-off energy assistance payment of $75 to single pensioners, while attempting to take $365 a year from single pensioners by removing the energy supplement to new pensioners. This might not be a significant amount for the Prime Minister but it is a very substantial amount for pensioners in Cardiff, Windale and Lake Munmorah—in fact, every suburb that I represent. I state again that the Prime Minister and his government are so out of touch that they do not comprehend the harm they are doing to pensioners, who deserve to be treated so much better.

The truth is that the $75 one-off payment to single pensioners is welcome but it does not begin to touch the sides of the energy crisis and the rise in energy bills that pensioners and, in fact, all Australians are confronting right now because of this government's incompetence. Wholesale energy prices have doubled on the coalition's watch and the cost of energy is a major concern for my constituents, particularly those on fixed incomes. The government is trying to con them with a one-off payment of $75. If this government were truly worried about the impact of energy prices on pensioners, they would do two simple things: firstly, they would support an emissions intensity scheme for the electricity sector—an emissions intensity scheme supported by basically every single stakeholder in the energy sector, whether it is the networks, the generators or the consumers. In fact, the government's own regulator supports an emissions intensity scheme. Basically anyone with a pulse who has any knowledge of the electricity sector, other than this government, is supporting an emissions intensity scheme. Why are they doing that? For two simple reasons: firstly, it will provide investment certainty that will unlock $48 billion of investment in the energy sector, which is so vitally needed; and, secondly, it will place downward pressure on electricity prices. Because of the way an EIS works, it subsidises the marginal producer in the energy market, which is gas. Gas sets the price for electricity, so by subsidising gas an EIS will actually reduce electricity prices.

Modelling commissioned by the government's own regulator and conducted by the government's favourite energy modeller, Danny Price, has found that an EIS will reduce electricity prices by $15 billion—$15 billion! So if the government were really interested in reducing electricity prices for pensioners and all Australians they would embrace an EIS, because that is the quickest, simplest and most efficient way of reducing electricity prices in this country.

The second thing they would do is to solve the gas crisis—a gas crisis that has seen incredibly high increases in the price of gas both for Australian manufacturers and Australian consumers of energy through gas. The government have been asleep at the wheel on this issue. For four years they have done nothing about the gas crisis, which has been barrelling down the line. In fact, they have made a couple of headline announcements recently on this issue: Prime Minister Turnbull promised that that he would halve the price of gas in this country. He said that he could get the price of gas down from $20 a gigajoule to $10 a gigajoule overnight, but he has not done anything concrete to achieve this promise. He has made a lot of hot air but he has done nothing to solve the gas crisis that the government have played a role in contributing to. So while I welcome these one-off energy assistance payments, if the government were really serious about solving the energy crisis and reducing electricity prices they would embrace an EIS and solve the gas crisis.

But whilst discussing energy assistance payments provided by the government, I want to note that Labor will still oppose the government's attempts to remove the energy supplement from the most vulnerable Australians. The 2017 budget papers confirm the government's determination to abolish this payment. The Prime Minister and his government are intent on creating a two-tier system for social security payments relating to the aged pension. That goes so very much against the fundamental Australian values of equality and a fair go. Creating two classes of aged pension is just wrong. Those Liberals and Nationals in this House who will vote for that change should be ashamed.

When I speak with pensioners affected by this change I proudly tell them that I and the Labor Party will continue to vote against these cruel cuts to those on fixed incomes. I recently ran a series of budget forums, briefing my constituents about what was in this budget. When I highlighted that the two zombie measures from the 2014 budget that remained in it were, first off, increasing the pension age to 70—the highest in the developed world—and, secondly, creating a two-class pension system, they were aghast. This was not just pensioners who were going to be affected by this change, or potential pensioners, it was existing pensioners, who were horrified that there would be a two-tier pension system.

The government has been unable to answer the question about why there should be two classes of pensioners. What will a new pensioner face in terms of reduced electricity prices that an existing pensioner does not face? It is blatantly inequitable and it is blatantly an attack on the universality of our social security system. It breaks that compact that I talked about previously, about providing a dignified retirement for all Australians.

Labor will continue to work with pensioner groups and the crossbench to ensure that the government does not prevail with this significant and unfair cut. I dare all coalition members of this House to actually go to their constituencies to explain why there should be a two-tier pension system, why new pensioners should be treated as second-class pensioners and why Australians need to work to the age of 70 to receive a pension. I would submit that the people who support this clearly do not know many manual labourers—or nurses, for that matter. Anyone whose job requires intense physical activity is going to be very unlikely to be able to work until the age of 70.

Labor will continue to work with pensioner groups to oppose this. The crossbench should also know that Labor will hold them to account if they side with the government and vote to cut the pension, because the crossbench has a pretty sordid history on these issues. The Greens were the only reason the government got through the reductions in the pension assets threshold. The Greens did a dirty deal—

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Shame!

Pat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens, shamefully, did a dirty deal with the coalition to cut the pensions for 300,000 Australians—and for what? What did they get in return for this sellout of some of the poorest Australians in this country? They got a commitment to an inquiry. That was worth reducing the income of 300,000 Australians and throwing 100,000 Australians off the pension.

In speaking on this bill, I also want to draw the attention of the House to the government's disgraceful and shameful record relating to social security payments. In their first budget, the government tried to cut pension indexation and leave pensioners $80 a week poorer. This is from a mob who is currently giving millionaires and big business a tax cut. It clearly identifies who they govern for and the priorities they have. I am proud that we defeated that change. In fact, I am proud that was a key reason the Liberals rolled their Prime Minister and replaced him with the member for Warringah. We will continue to fight for a fair treatment of pensioners.

I have already referred to the asset test changes. The government now wants to cut payments to retirees after six weeks of travelling overseas. Surely, elderly Australians who have worked hard and saved are entitled to a holiday. The government has said that their most recent budget is about fairness, but their most senior ministers—the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the finance minister—have all confirmed that the only reason they are not pursuing their draconian cuts to other measures is they cannot pass them in the Senate. Let us be clear on this matter: the Liberals and Nationals still believe in these cruel cuts to the pension, but they have been stifled from enacting them by the Labor Party in the Senate. They have, all of a sudden, discovered the concept of fairness. Australians will not be fooled by the government. They know that this government discovered the concept of fairness through a focus group and that the Labor Party is the only political party that delivers a fair go.

In concluding, let me reiterate that I am proud to be a member of a party that supports the pension, that created the pension, that defends the pension, that protects the pension against the inequitable attacks by the coalition. In conclusion, the Labor Party does welcome the government's backdown regarding the pensioner concession card. We will continue to highlight that the government are cutting the pension. They would have made even more severe cuts over the previous years but have been prevented in doing so by the Labor Party. The provision of the age pension and social security payments in general is incredibly important to ordinary Australians. The government just do not understand this.

I commend the bill to the House.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Energy Assistance Payment and Pensioner Concession Card) Bill 2017. I commend the member for Shortland for his contribution, even though he has some dubious tastes in football teams! Labor supports this bill. Labor will always support Australians who are doing it tough.

But let us be clear about what this bill really is. It is a mere distraction by the Turnbull government—a mere leisure domain. It is a legislative equivalent of smoke and mirrors. It is the sleazy grin of a snake oil salesman while he fleeces you. Most Australian pensioners are too smart to be taken in by this cheap con trick. Prime Minister Turnbull thinks, seriously, that if he gives pensioners a one-off payment of $75 they will not notice him taking $365 a year from them every year. This is a bad late-night TV ad—you know, 'We'll throw in some matching steak knives, but then we're going to bill you 30 bucks a month forever.' This is shear arrogance coming out of Point Piper and shows a Prime Minister who is simply out of touch.

Despite what he says, Prime Minister Turnbull has no idea about fairness. He can say the word over and over again but never actually feel it. His focus group research says, 'If you can fake fairness, you'll have it made.' Well, Australian pensioners are on to him. How is it fair to expect that pensioners should be thanking the Prime Minister for giving them a $75 one-off payment while, at the same time, trying to cut the energy supplement, which will leave pensioners $365 worse off every year? That is not fair. It is a shocking way to treat Australians who are already doing it tough. We know that. But we should not be surprised. The Liberals have never ever cared about pensioners. People on the age pension have worked hard all their lives and saved hard. They deserve better from our government. Sadly, they are being treated like beggars in the street—expected to be grateful if the government throws a few coins their way. Pensioners will be worse off under the Turnbull government if this legislation goes through. This one-off $75 payment will go nowhere near making up for the axing of the energy supplement. As I said, that will cost pensioners $365 every year.

We know that there is no fat when it comes to pensioners' lifestyle. The pension payment does not allow for a lavish lifestyle at all. It barely covers the necessities of life. I remember doorknocking a couple of pensioners last year in the lead-up to the election. I remember one guy in Tarragindi in particular. He was saying how he only turned his hot water system on every couple of days. Brisbane winters are not the same as Canberra winters; nevertheless, it broke my heart to think that a guy who had worked hard all his life had to make decisions like that. And $365 a year less is an awful lot when you are living that sort of lifestyle on a pension. It can be the difference between being able to have an extra blanket in winter or going cold; the difference between eating a healthy diet of good quality, fresh food or eating the cheap and nasty stuff; the difference between leaving your home or becoming a hermit. Every cent matters to pensioners.

Labor understands this. It was Labor who first introduced the pension system into the Australian parliament. There was no social security system in Australia at the beginning of the 20th century. People who needed assistance relied on charitable relief by voluntary organisations—in some cases, with the benefit of government grants. So there was basically no social safety net. The sick poor or neglected children, old people who were destitute and women who had been deserted or had fallen pregnant were the most in need of the limited charitable assistance. The unemployed were assisted by grants of wages or rations in return for relief work provided by the government of the day.

In 1909 it was a Labor government that created our pension system, only eight years after Federation. In June 1908, Labor exercised the power granted to the Commonwealth upon Federation to legislate in respect of age and invalid pensions. Labor introduced means tested, flat rate age and invalid pensions. These new pensions, which were financed from general revenue, came into operation in July 1909 and December 1910 under Andrew Fisher's Labor government. The new pension was paid to men from age 65; it was paid to women from age 60, but not until December 1910.

Obviously, there have been many changes in Australia since 1910. The population has expanded. Our standard of living has improved. Our health care has improved—to a large extent, due to another Labor initiative, Medibank, and then Medicare. Our life expectancy has increased: a baby boy born in 1910 had a life expectancy of only 55.2 years, but a baby boy born in 2015 has a life expectancy of 80.4 years and a baby girl even longer. People live longer, and the period of time beyond their working life has increased. It now costs more to sustain a person beyond their working life, and there are many reasons why people have not accumulated enough savings to carry them through.

Compulsory superannuation was introduced by the Paul Keating government in July 1992. Prior to that, unless you had an income substantial enough to allow you to create a nest egg—and, sadly, there were many people, and families in particular, that could not—you were destined to eventually be on a pension after retirement. It was how the system worked, prior to compulsory superannuation. Every worker paid taxes, and that allowed the government to look after those who could not afford to adequately look after themselves in retirement. People worked hard and saved hard, but that did not always guarantee that they would have enough money to see them through their autumn years when they could no longer work. So that is why Labor introduced compulsory superannuation.

The superannuation guarantee system was part of a major reform package addressing Australia's retirement income policies and challenges. Labor, in a visionary way, correctly anticipated that there would be a major demographic shift in the coming decades that would result in an increase in age pension payments and would place an unaffordable strain on the Australian economy—particularly as the baby boomers made that transition. Labor introduced a three-pillars approach: a safety net, consisting of a means tested government age pension system; private savings, generated through compulsory contributions to superannuation; and then voluntary savings, through superannuation and other investments. The superannuation guarantee is a great system, and this nation now has the third-biggest managed fund in the world: $2.2 trillion and rising—not bad for a small nation of only 23 million people.

But we need to remember that compulsory superannuation was not available until 1992. So people reaching their current retirement age of 65 this year were already 40 when the superannuation guarantee came in, so half of their working life had already passed. People who are currently receiving the age pension have had even less working life to accumulate superannuation. There are other reasons people may not have been able to accumulate enough superannuation to see them through their retirement years—for example, people may not have had steady employment during their working life; women may have taken time out of the workforce to care for their families and raise children; workers perhaps have been in sectors transformed by the digital revolution and changes in manufacturing and the like. So it is very arrogant of a government to assume that everyone has had the opportunity to accumulate enough superannuation to set up a Cayman Islands account and will be able to live comfortably in retirement. A good government understands this. But most pensioners, including past pensioners, would consider 'living comfortably' as being able to afford safe, secure housing, to eat nutritious food and to occasionally be able to see family and friends. These are things that most Australians would think every person in our lucky country has the right to enjoy, especially after 25 years of uninterrupted growth and economic success.

There is absolutely no doubt that the Superannuation Guarantee was a great Labor policy success; it was a solution to a problem that was identified. Through Labor's initiative, Australians have accumulated more than $2.2 trillion—and rising—in superannuation assets. Of course, that balance sheet would look a whole lot better if the Howard government had not abandoned the Keating government's 15 per cent Superannuation Guarantee way back in 1996. That myopic decision has cost the average Australian worker about $250,000 in accumulated superannuation. The government's decision to abandon the previous Labor government's Superannuation Guarantee rise to 12 per cent has further eroded the future retirement savings of Australians. Compulsory superannuation contributions have been frozen by the Abbott-Turnbull government at 9.5 per cent until 2021.

The Labor architect of the Superannuation Guarantee, former Prime Minister Paul Keating, has described that decision by the coalition government as representing 'nothing other than the wilful sabotage of the nation's universal savings scheme, and sabotage for reasons only of prejudice'. We can also see it in the coalition's misguided attempts on industry funds, which are outperforming the retail funds; it is certainly very short sighted.

The three pillared approach introduced by the Keating Labor government, vandalised by the Howard government and further undermined by the Abbott-Turnbull government is now a very wobbly tripod indeed. By way of confirmation that the Turnbull government is completely out of touch, a government that fundamentally does not understand pensions, it wants to increase the pension age to 70. That might be fine if you are a barrister, but it is a lot tougher if you are a brickies labourer, a nurse or someone who uses their body for lifting and the like. The Finance Minister confirmed in Senate estimates last week that increasing the pension age to 70 is 'a measure they remain committed to'. He said it remained government policy. If that occurs, Australia will have the oldest pension age in the developed world. Builders, tradies, nurses and farmers would have to continue doing what is sometimes backbreaking work until they are 70 before they would be eligible for the age pension. This policy shows a complete disconnect between the government and ordinary working Australians.

Sadly, we have seen this before with the Turnbull government. This bill will reinstate the pensioner concession cards to some former pensioners who became ineligible for the cards after the changes to the pension assets test. This will correct what was a bungle by a government who does not understand the pension system and does not fundamentally understand or care about pensioners. Joe Hockey, the former Treasurer, told Australians that 'anyone who currently has a pensioner concession card will continue to receive a concession card that provides the same benefits'. That was a quote from the cigar-smoking Treasurer. Sadly, it was not true; it was a lie. It was up there with the Medicare safety net commitment. Remember that rock-solid, ironclad guarantee given by the former Health Minister Abbott, now the Banquo of the backbench? It was not the truth, according to the former Treasurer. Former pensioners were issued with health care cards and Commonwealth seniors cards, which did not provide the same benefits. Former pensioners were no longer able to access vital government funded hearing services. Former pensioners, who are living on modest means, suffered a cruel blow with the loss of benefits. Finally realising the error of their policy, they have now reinstated those pensioner concession cards to those that ceased to be eligible for those cards. We should be thankful for small mercies, I guess, but it does not change the fact that the Turnbull government does not understand pensions or pensioners, does not care about then and perhaps never has.

In 2014 the Liberals tried to cut pension indexation and leave pensioners $80 a week poorer over 10 years. The Liberals tried to reset the deeming rate thresholds. That would have had a devastating impact on half a million part pensioners. The Liberals changed the assets test and almost 100,000 retirees lost their pension and many more had their payments reduced. The Liberals tried to prevent pensioner retirees from travelling overseas for more than six weeks to spend time with their families overseas. The member for Warringah promised in 2013 before the election that there would be no changes to the pension. We could not trust his government then and we still cannot trust the person responsible for the coup that removed that Prime Minister. If the Turnbull government thinks they will get away with it, they will make cuts to the pension in an instant. Pensioners and Labor are awake to them and we will not let pensioners be treated with contempt.

Labor understands pensions. Labor fundamentally understands fairness. It is in our DNA. It was Labor that created our pension system in 1909 and built universal superannuation in 1992. Labor has not stopped there. In terms of pension reforms, between September 2009 and 2013 there was an increase in the maximum rate of pension of around $207 per fortnight for singles and $236 per fortnight for couples combined. That was a Labor initiative. It is Labor that will continue to protect retirement income for all Australians and ensure the financial security of older Australians. Labor understands that pensioners have worked hard all their lives and have contributed so much to make this country great. Australian pensioners deserve the dignity of a decent retirement. They do not deserve to be betrayed and made to feel like a burden by the Liberal Party and Prime Minister Turnbull. We have made it clear that Labor will continue to fight for Australian pensioners and oppose any attacks by this uncaring, out of touch government.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again, it is a pleasure to follow the member for Moreton in a debate in this chamber. In speaking on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Energy Assistance Payment and Pensioner Concession Card) Bill 2017, can I say to the member for Moreton that I commend him on the speech he has just delivered. I believe he very eloquently outlined the issue in respect of pensioners, the treatment they have received under this government and the very stark difference between the Turnbull government and previous Labor governments.

Indeed, no government in recent times has treated pensioners more disgracefully than has the Turnbull-Abbott coalition government since their election in 2013. At that election they made a very clear promise: no cuts to pensions if they were to be elected. Sadly, immediately upon being elected, they did the opposite. Indeed, they not only set about cutting the pensions for pensioners but they also set about cutting a whole range of other payments and support measures that were in place that directly affected the income pensioners would have received or the support they were receiving.

Pensioners are people who, in many cases, already face considerable hardship. They have no other options in life with respect to raising funds. Many of them are at a stage in their life where they simply cannot do any part-time work if it were able. They simply have no alternative and no choice but to depend on the payments they receive through their pension. These are also people who lived in times that very likely meant they endured hardship and sacrifice to a level current generations simply would never understand—sacrifice and hardship I suspect many cabinet members of this Turnbull coalition government would not understand, because if they did they would not treat them so badly. This is a coalition government that thinks pensioners are easy targets and that perhaps they simply do not understand the impact and the effects of the changes they are making. The reality is that pensioners do understand. They know that they have been gutted and they know exactly when they are losing out as a result of government decisions. I hear it regularly from people I speak to in my electorate, as I am sure every member of this House—including coalition members—must hear as they are out and about speaking to people within their electorates. This legislation is an attempt by the Turnbull government to restore only a fraction of what has been taken from them over the last four years. Doing this will simply not restore the faith of pensioners in the Turnbull government. The Turnbull government is only doing it because it has been pressured into it by the public response, by this side of the parliament and by other MPs on the crossbench that have also been raising the unfairness of this government with respect to pensioners.

The legislation does two things: it restores the pensioner concession card, and it provides a one-off $75 payment to single pensioners with energy costs; for couples the payment is $62.50 each. Again, everyone would agree that this is a very meagre amount of money, and it is a one-off payment only. Simultaneously, this government wants to take $365 of ongoing annual payment that pensioners currently receive in the way of energy supplement. That payment will be taken away from new pensioners in the future and, I understand, for any pensioner that started receiving the pension after September 2016. My understanding is that legislation in respect of that was only brought into the House this morning. So again, I say to pensioners that have come on in the last 12 months, if you started receiving your pension in September 2016 expect that under this legislation you will lose the $365 energy supplement and in place you will get a one-off $75 amount.

Pensioners can do their sums, and they have. If you go through the measures that this government has brought into this place since coming into office, the attacks on pensioners have been relentless. Firstly, they brought in only at the beginning of this year changes to the pension asset test rules. As a result of those changes, 330,000 pensioners became worse off. 236,000 lost an average of $130 per fortnight and 91,000 lost their pension entirely. That was $190 per fortnight for them on average. For pensioners those amounts of money matter a lot. It makes a difference to the kind of life they can live.

The government did this in order to save $2.4 billion over four years. That is $2.4 billion that was taken out of the hands of pensioners in order for the government to try and balance its budget. Whichever way the government wants to spin the issue about the asset test rules, the reality is that that $2.4 billion came directly out of the household budgets of pensioners. The changes at the time also meant that those 91,000, which I now understand is 92,000, that lost their pension altogether in turn lost their pensioner concession card. So for them it was a double hit, because the pensioner concession card also enabled them to access a number of other things they needed in their lives at a reduced rate. So they were hit doubly. The government is now saying that they will restore that—only because, as I said earlier on, of the pressure that has been put on them.

Of course Labor will be supporting this legislation, because it does reinstate the pensioner concession card. Whilst the $75, or the $62.50 for each couple, is only a meagre amount, I have no doubt that it will still be money that the pensioners would rather have than not have.

I want to talk about the record of this government on pensioners. As I said from the outset, this government has treated the pensioners more disgracefully than any other government in recent times. The measures that this government has brought in, or tried to do, are beyond what I would have thought any fair-minded government would ever have wanted to do. Firstly, they tried to reset the deeming rate threshold, which would have affected the part pension of half a million pensioners across the country. Secondly, they wanted to change the indexation rate. These are matters that the member for Moreton covered in his speech a few minutes ago but I want to reiterate, because when you look at the list it really brings home how harsh this government has been when it comes to pensioners. Then there was the $1.3 billion of cuts to the pensioner concession payments that were being made to the states. The Turnbull and Abbott governments claimed that these were payments that were made by the states, and therefore, it was not a responsibility of the federal government. The reality is that that $1.3 billion had been paid by the Commonwealth government for years and years, and it went directly into the households of pensioners. The states might have picked up the tab, but this was a direct cut to pensioner payments by this government. We then had the asset test and taper rate, which I referred to earlier on, that took $2.4 billion from pensioners. We had the education supplement, where around 41,000 recipients would have been worse off as a result of what this government proposed to do. There is the issue of pensioners going overseas—if they were there for more than six weeks they would have had their pension also cut. If they were a migrant pensioner who did not spend their entire life in this country, the cuts would have been even deeper.

But those are not the only things that were going to hit pensioners. We also had the proposal, reaffirmed last week by the finance minister, that the pension age is going to rise to 70. This is not about cutting the pension or cutting the assistance and support payments to the pension—this is about cutting the whole thing. You do not get anything until you reach the age of 70—the highest age in the world for people to receive a pension, and this was the work of the coalition government.

It goes further than that, because when we look at other out-of-pocket costs that pensioners have to face on a daily basis, we then come to the issue of health funding in this country. We know that out-of-pocket health and medical costs have risen in recent years since this government came to office, particularly because the government has extended the Medicare rebate freeze. As a result of that, we know that more doctors are charging a co-payment or have increased their co-payment when they see a patient. That has a direct effect on pensioners because, as we also all know, pensioners, because of the stage in their life, are more likely to have to go and see their doctor and, therefore, incur medical costs. So the cuts to health payments by this government have also had a very direct impact on pensioners—more so than on any other sector in the community—and the government would have known that. Again, it just shows the callous disregard that this government has had for pensioners.

I now turn to aged-care funding—a sector of funding that, as we all know, pensioners are more likely to be in need of. Whether it is home and community care funding or whether it is the assistance and aged-care packages, it is more likely than not that the person applying for those packages or the home and community care assistance is going to be pensioner. Quite often it is a single pensioner; sometimes it is a pensioner where the spouse is in need of that support. Again, we see billions of dollars cut from those programs. As a result of those cuts, we also know that just getting an aged-care package at the moment is an absolute nightmare. Not only are the packages simply not available, particularly if you need a level 3 or level 4 package—even just getting the assessment has become very difficult. All of this is in order to stall the provision of the support that those packages would otherwise provide. This goes to the heart of the needs of pensioners. I can assure the House that I have had many people talk to me about that issue alone, and they are all pensioners. When they get to a point where they do not get the funding, what do they do? They have to find it one way or another, because it is funding that they absolutely need. They are in a desperate situation, and we have this government cutting their funding and simultaneously cutting the support to them in every other service that they might, in the past, have been receiving support from.

Whichever way pensioners turn, the Turnbull government's policies and budget cuts have made their lives more difficult. Pensioners know that, and that is why they have lost faith in the Turnbull government. Not only were they lied to by the coalition in the 2013 election, when they were promised no cuts to pensions; they feel even more cheated when they see $65 billion of tax cuts given to business whilst, simultaneously, they are asked to receive cuts to their weekly income.

I particularly focus on the cuts that go to those businesses which turnover more than $50 million per year, and which the government wants to proceed with in respect of the tax cuts that it wants to make for those businesses. Those cuts will amount to some $45 billion over the next decade. Most of that money will probably go to businesses that are based overseas or which have their headquarters overseas and, in fact, to many shareholders who are overseas, so it will not even be circulating in the Australian economy.

Contrast that with the money that is being cut to pensioners, which in my view is a false saving by the government. Pensioners, because of their meagre income every week, spend every last dollar in their local community. They keep people employed in the local community and they keep small businesses going in their local community. So most of the money that the government outlays to support pensioners inevitably would be coming back to local communities, supporting them, and through that much of the money would actually be coming back to government because it would save the government other expenditure down the track, whether that is increased unemployment payments that it would have to make or something similar.

I started off by talking about the very cruel cuts that are being made to pensioners by this government. These two measures, yes, will be supported by this side of the House. But both fall far short of restoring all of the cuts made by this government. I say to members opposite: pensioners do understand the way they are being treated by this government. They understand it well. I have spoken to them at forums, I have met with them in my office and I have met with them as I am out and around in the community. There is no sector in the community that feels more aggrieved and feels that they have been more harshly treated than do the pensioners I speak to. It is time that this government showed a little respect for them and treated them with the dignity they deserve.

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on behalf of the 22,000 aged pensioners and around 7,000 people with disability in my electorate who receive a pension. They are deeply concerned about the government's flip-flopping on retirement income policy. Whether they are full- or part-pensioners, or whether they are superannuants, they are looking for certainty, and this Social Services Legislation Amendment (Energy Assistance Payment and Pensioner Concession Card) Bill 2017 provides none of it.

The bill has two schedules. We know that the first schedule is an afterthought and the second schedule is a complete backflip on everything the government has been doing for the last four years. Let's have a look at the first schedule.

We know that the schedule, which contains a one-off payment of $75 for age pensioners, is an absolute afterthought. It comes here not on its policy merits but as part of a deal which was put there to try to ease the $64 billion in big business tax cuts through the Senate. We know that they are deeply unpopular. We know that the Senate crossbenchers were not happy about them, because they are underfunded and unaffordable. So this was part of the deal to try to squeeze them through an otherwise reticent Senate.

The government hopes that this bill is going to distract pensioners from the cuts to energy supplements that it hopes to smuggle through in the shadow of this legislation, but we are not going to allow it and pensioners are not going to be so easily fooled. Here is why: in 2014 the coalition promised that it would reduce power prices. The only thing that stood between pensioners and lower electricity bills, according to the coalition, was the carbon price. We knew at the time that this was not true, but pensioners now know it is not true and everybody in fact now knows that it is not true, because energy prices have not dropped—they have gone through the roof. Whether it is gas or electricity prices, their mismanagement of the energy market has been an absolute disaster. It has seen prices go up and up and up, with no sign of abating.

When the carbon price was removed, the wholesale prices for electricity stood at about $65 or $67 per megawatt hour. Today, do you know what they are, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough? They are $134 per megawatt hour on average. That is the average national price. So, instead of going down, they have actually doubled. Against this backdrop you would think a government that was serious about looking after pensioners and people on fixed incomes would be doing something to ensure that we could help people who are struggling to pay their power bills. But instead of this we saw, this very morning, the minister come into this place and introduce legislation that is going to axe the energy supplement for 1.7 million Australians—a payment designed to help vulnerable Australians meet the cost of energy.

The bill—a $1 billion cut to new pensioners and people with disabilities, carers and people on Newstart—will see a single pensioner have their pension cut by $14.10 per fortnight, or $365 a year, a cut that was designed by this government and that is going to hurt pensioners. A pensioner couple will be $21.20 worse off a fortnight, or around $550 a year. Our friends in the coalition who have spoken in favour of this bill and will speak in favour of the pension cut bill are asking pensioners to form a line to pat them on the back and cheer for their $75 once-off payment at the same time as they are going to stick their hand in the air and vote for a $365 cut to pensions. It is an absolute disgrace, in the same week that they are claiming credit for a once-off payment of $75—this is less than $1.50 a week for pensioners—ripping away $365 for every new pensioner.

This is a government that as completely two-faced when it comes to pensions. But I can tell you, the people I represent in this place will be single-minded in their judgement of this government and its pensions policy. It is bad enough for the government to say to people who need help with rising energy costs that they are going to scrap the payments that were designed to assist them to meet those costs. It is bad enough that they are doing that, but it is made doubly worse by the fact that the government's own policies are responsible for sending energy prices through the roof.

A few weeks ago the Prime Minister promised that he was going to do something about gas prices, after sitting on his hands for over four years. They have suddenly twigged to the fact that we have a problem with the gas market in this country, which is seeing gas prices go through the roof for both manufacturers and households. The Prime Minister has promised that by July he is going to reduce the wholesale price for gas from $20 a gigajoule to bring us somewhere closer to the long-term average. Well, today industry passed a vote of no confidence in this prediction by the Prime Minister, in strongly worded statements by the manufacturers of this country, led by aluminium, but they are not alone. They have said that they have no faith in this government's ability to meet this objective. Neither do the pensioners, and neither does the Labor opposition, because we have seen them fail through their inattention and inactivity on gas prices, and we have seen them fail through their inactivity and their mismanagement of electricity policy. The lack of a long-term policy for our electricity markets and the ability to send long-term signals has led to an investment strike in new energy production, and it is this that is having a big impact on the high power prices that pensioners and other households are paying today.

The second schedule to this bill is an absolute backflip. In 2015 the former Treasurer announced in his budget changes to the income and assets test which would see a large number of pensioners removed from their pension. In an attempt to assuage the inevitable anger that those people who were being knocked off their part pension were going to feel towards the Treasurer, the Treasurer announced in his budget night speech that they would retain access to the pension concession card. We know that this was a lie. We know that this was not true. Labor have been relentless in pursuing the government to ensure that they stood true to the commitment that they gave to pensioners on budget night in 2015. Well, here we are, nearly two years later, and it has taken until now for the government to introduce this legislation, after being chased up hill and down dale by the Labor opposition and supported by those angry pensioners who have lost access and lost faith in this government. Only today have we seen the legislation introduced to the House to make good on a promise that was made two years ago by the former Treasurer. We welcome the fact that the government is finally doing the right thing, after exhausting every other option.

There are many in this place who value the important relationship that we have with our pensioners and superannuants. It is why the member for Cunningham and I, together with Labor's candidate for the seat of Gilmore, have organised over the last few months a series of pensioner forums. On 7 March in my electorate and in the electorate of Gilmore, we were very happy to host the member for Jagajaga—somebody who is respected across the aisle and around the country for her expertise and long-term commitment in this area. Over 600 pensioners and superannuants attended those forums. I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that is a large turnout in any electorate and in anyone's language. They were deeply concerned about the flip-flopping on policy by this government. They were deeply concerned to hear some straight information about what was going on and how they could get some certainty around pension policy in this country. Many issues were raised, such as what was happening with access to the concession card and what was happening to the energy supplements—matters that are the subject of legislation before the House today—but there were some other issues that they wanted answers on.

If you are a part-pensioner then you are acutely interested in the policy around deeming rates. If there is an issue on which the coalition government has been asleep at the wheel, it is deeming rates. There are many Australians who, if they have a mortgage, are enjoying historically low interest rates. We welcome the fact that this is assisting those people who are struggling to meet the cost of their mortgage to have more money in their pocket, because less money is going towards meeting their mortgage payments. But there is a flip side to this coin. If you are a pensioner or a superannuant who is relying on interest on your fixed capital to derive an income then the historically low rates of interest are hitting you hard and making it harder for you to earn the income necessary to meet your weekly expenses. Against this backdrop, you would expect a government that was in tune with the needs of superannuants to be focused on the deeming rates and ensuring that they were relevant with the current rates that were being earned within the investment market. Despite interest rates falling from 2.5 per cent in February 2015 to 1.5 per cent as of 7 March 2017, there has not been an adjustment in the deeming rates. Currently, a single pensioner's savings are deemed at 1.75 per cent on the first $49,200 and any amount over that rate is deemed at a rate of 3.25 per cent. The pensioners and the superannuants that I talk to say, 'If you can find a rate, if you can find a product, if you can find an investment that delivers on that, tell me about it, because there is nowhere in the market that we can get that rate.' There is a call to action for the government to do something about this, to provide some relief to pensioners, part-pensioners and superannuants, because they are struggling to make ends meet.

I have stood in this place before and asked the government to revisit its plan to lift the pension retirement age in this country to the highest level in the Western world. We thought that the deep concern within the community was going to have the government rethink its position on this, but we learnt only this week that the government is persisting with its plan to ensure that we lift the pension age to the highest level in the Western world.

Well, retiring at age 70 might be realistic if you have done office work or non-manual work for your entire life, but if you have worked with your body, if you have worked in physical labour, if you have worked as a builder, a carpenter, an electrician, a plumber or a labourer, or if you have worked as a nurse or a nurse's aide or a hospital orderly, and you have spent your entire life lifting weights, or being on your knees or working in confined spaces, or if you have worked as a truck driver and you have been responsible for lifting weights at awkward angles, you know that, by the time you are hitting your mid-60s, your back, your knees, your elbows and your skin are starting to give in. So only a person who has worked in an office all their life could say with any sincerity that you can work to the age of 70 and your body is going to hold up. People who have worked in physical labour their whole lives know that that is not true.

So again I call on the government to rethink this reckless policy, together with the other areas of their retirement, pension and income policy which are out of tune with the needs of people in my electorate and throughout the Illawarra, the Southern Highlands and the South Coast who are asking for a better deal from the government. They deserve better than the sleight of hand that they are getting through this legislation, this package of bills that is before the parliament today. The coalition have always thought that they could take this constituency for granted. That is no longer the case.

Cathy O'Toole (Herbert, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in this place to make it very clear that I am appalled at the way the Turnbull government is treating our pensioners and I am proud to support the amendment moved by Jenny Macklin MP. This government's continual attack on pensioners shows just how out of touch they really are with the basic needs of the people in our communities who need the most support.

It is also a pleasure for me to follow the member for Whitlam, who has identified very succinctly the plight of pensioners in our community today. The findings of the OECD report Pensions at a glance 2015 show that one-third of pensioners are living below the poverty line. Australia was ranked second-lowest on social equity, with 36 per cent of pensioners living below the poverty line, and, for Australia, this is simply disgraceful and totally unacceptable.

Not only is this government now making Australians work until they are 70 years of age, but it has put forward detrimental cuts to pensioners' livelihoods. This will see Australia have the oldest retirement age in the developed world. It is a sad fact that the Turnbull government will give big business a $65 billion tax break whilst making significant, life-altering cuts for pensioners. How out of touch is that!

The vast majority of the age pensioners in this country have worked and paid their taxes. They are not 'leaners'. They have earned their pension. They have contributed to our economy and our communities. In the Herbert electorate there are more than 12,000 people who are on the age pension. These pensioners are former teachers, construction workers, secretaries and nurses. These are the people who, during their lifetime, have contributed to the Herbert economy and community, and I intend to stand up for them against this government's cruel cuts.

But let us address the elephant in the room in this bill: the energy assistance payment. A single pensioner will have a pension cut of $14.10 per fortnight or $365 a year because of the Turnbull government. Couple pensioners will be $21.20 a fortnight worse off, or around $550 a year worse off. If someone, anyone, in the Turnbull government could please explain to me how taking $365 a year from a pensioner and replacing it with a measly one-off payment of $75 does not mean that pensioners will be worse off, I would be truly grateful. Taking $365 per year and giving a one-off payment of $75 simply does not add up and is not a win, in my book, for pensioners.

If this is the maths that our Treasurer is doing, it is no wonder that he has put our AAA credit rating at risk and trebled the deficit. A once-off $75 payment is not the same as $365 in assistance every year to help pensioners keep up with the increasing energy and cost-of-living outlays. A one-off $75 payment will never equal an annual $365 payment. This Prime Minister has shown time and time again that he does not even begin to get fairness. This government cannot try shaking your right hand whilst stealing from your left hand—that is just not fair. Yet this government talks about fairness every day. Clearly it just does not understand what the word 'fairness' means.

It is absolutely outrageous that this government is desperate to give big business a $65 billion tax cut but cannot even give our pensioners $365 a year to help cover the cost of electricity and the growing cost of living.

What is even worse is the fact that the Turnbull government is doing nothing to lower the cost of energy prices in the north. Under the Abbott and Turnbull governments, wholesale electricity prices have doubled across the National Electricity Market. The lack of a clear investment framework for industry to invest in new electricity generation is driving up power prices. The Australian Energy Council has stated that 'the lack of national policy certainty is now the single biggest driver of higher electricity prices'. So not only is the Turnbull government cutting vital assistance to pensioners to pay their electricity bills; it is also driving up the cost of electricity across the country by its inaction. Unfortunately in the Herbert electorate, inaction on electricity prices is nothing new, with this government not matching Labor's commitment of $200 million for a hydro power station on the Burdekin Falls Dam.

All of this inaction and cuts just leave our pensioners worse off every day. I challenge the government to meet some of the people they are affecting with these horrible cuts. Marie lives in my electorate of Herbert and is very active in her community. Marie is 70 years old and is still working. She currently works casually as a cook at one of the boarding schools in Townsville. Although Marie does receive the pension, she cannot afford to not work. Marie is forced to pinch pennies just to survive. She has also been a victim of the Centrelink robo-debt, even though her earnings were reported formally to Centrelink every pay day by the HR department in her place of work. Marie also works to help support her daughter, who is currently unemployed due to a workplace accident and is a single mother with a daughter with a disability. Pensioners like Marie will really miss the $365 energy supplement payment, and a one-off $75 payment just will not cut it.

Living in regional Queensland can be tough for pensioners who are trying to make ends meet. However, this government should never underestimate the determination and activism of seniors and pensioners. In my electorate of Herbert we have a flash mob called Seniors Creating Change, who are very innovative and active in educating the community and sending clear messages to this government. They use music and songs that they write to get their message out, and they are very popular performers in our community. On 10 June, Seniors Creating Change will celebrate their sixth birthday, and they are supported by the Townsville Community Legal Service.

Another issue for pensioners in our community is the price of fuel. It is much higher than the price of fuel in Brisbane. Our electricity costs are more than that of our southern counterparts, and some grocery items are much more expensive. Pensioners like Marie rely heavily on the support provided by the government, which is fair enough, as they have worked all of their lives—and in Marie's case, is still working—paid taxes and contributed to our communities. Surely in their ageing years they deserve to be able to live stress-free and not worry about having enough money to survive day to day and week to week. The energy supplement payment means a lot to pensioners like Marie. It allows them to take a breath and keep their head above water. It is a fair go, a hand up and not a handout. But the Turnbull government makes people like Marie feel ashamed to have something that should be rightfully theirs. Australian pensioners deserve better than this.

The Prime Minister cannot get away with this. He will not get away with pulling the wool over the eyes of age pensioners and hardworking Australians. The Prime Minister does not seem to care about our pensioners. If he really cared about fairness, he would support vulnerable Australians to make ends meet and he would not be trying to abolish the energy supplement payment. I am proud to stand with my Labor colleagues, and I would like to particularly mention the advocacy efforts of the honourable Jenny Macklin. Labor will once again oppose the government's attempts to remove the energy supplement payment for our pensioners, and Labor will once again take up the charge to fight for our pensioners.

Then we have the pensioner concession card. The coalition's disastrous handling of the pensioner concession card has effectively delivered a health cut for many pensioners. Joe Hockey, the then Treasurer, promised Australians that nobody would lose their concession entitlements. The reality is that people did. The coalition government misled the Australian people, and as a result many pensioners have gone without. He said that anyone who currently has a pensioner concession card would continue to receive a concession card that provides the same benefits. Instead, former pensioners were issued with health care cards and Commonwealth seniors cards, which did not provide the same benefits. Many pensioners without a pensioner concession card were not able to access vital government-funded hearing services, and from state to state different concessions were applied. The loss of the pensioner concession card was a cruel double blow to many former pensioners with modest incomes. After Labor had to drag this government kicking and screaming, and after Australian pensioners had to fight for something that was rightfully theirs, the Turnbull government have heard our call and are finally attempting to right the wrong they created.

However, the damage is done. Pensioners can see through this cellophane Turnbull government and know that this government cannot be trusted to protect their pensions. This government must think that Australians have a very short and poor memory. We remember 2014, when this government tried to cut pension indexation and leave pensioners $80 dollars a week poorer over 10 years. We remember when the Liberals tried to reset the deeming rate thresholds, changes that would have negatively impacted half a million part pensioners. Who could forget when the assets test changed and the goalposts were shifted on hundreds of thousands of pensioners who had carefully planned for their retirement. Almost 100,000 retirees lost their pension and many more had their payments reduced. Heaven forbid that a retiree would dare aspire to travel overseas—if Malcolm Turnbull had his way, after six weeks overseas pensioners' payments would be cut off. It would be even worse for migrant pensioners. If you are a pensioner who was not born in Australia and you wanted to visit family and friends overseas, your pension would be reduced in line with the time you have lived in Australia, as though your contribution was simply worthless.

They say these cuts have gone for good, but, as usual, pensioners cannot trust this government. The Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Social Services have all said that the only reason these cuts are not in the budget is because they cannot get through the Senate. This government still believes that making life harder for hardworking Australians is fair and reasonable. These cuts are not gone. The Prime Minister is just waiting for an opportunity to resurrect them. In 2013, Tony Abbott promised no changes to the pension. They could not be trusted then and they cannot be trusted now.

The Prime Minister is holding onto the member for Warringah's plan to increase the pension age to 70. Australians will have to work longer than anybody else anywhere in the world, as I have said. That is not a dream—that is called a nightmare. The Turnbull government is weak when it comes to delivering for our pensioners. The Hon. Christian Porter should be ashamed. As elected representatives, we should be looking after all Australians and not just those with big pockets and big bank accounts. Big business does not need our help. Our pensioners have paid more tax than a lot of tax dodging big businesses. Pensioners deserve and need our help. I will continue to stand up for those who cannot advocate for themselves and I will fight to ensure that pensioners get a fair go, because that is the Australian way.

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Energy Assistance Payment and Pensioner Concession Card) Bill 2017. I would like to reflect on quite an amazing history. We talked the other night about the education policy of the present government and the Orwellian nightmare we have been traversing. The issue of pensions is one that also illustrates that incredible story. Really, I think that nothing illustrates more the government's unfairness in its approach to budget measures than the history we have seen in relation to pensions.

Again, if we hark back to those promises that were made before the 2013 election, they were that there would be no changes to pensions, let alone cuts—no changes whatsoever. Then what we saw in that 2014 budget was an incredibly brutal attack on those pensions. I think the area of those pension cuts that concerned me the most related to, in particular, the attempts to cut veterans' pensions and support for war widows and for war orphans. Of course, this was following the Labor record in government of actually taking pensions to historic levels—historic improvements—and introducing new measures to better reflect the support that pensioners of all kinds needed. In particular, there was the introduction of one new indexation mechanism known as the pensioners and beneficiaries cost of living index. We know that CPI did not necessarily reflect the true costs of living. You cannot eat a plasma television even if the price of those TVs come down. That is not something that is relevant to the day-to-day survival of a pensioner.

And so this PBCLI was a very important mechanism to reflect the true cost of living for a pensioner. What does it cost to actually put food on the table or to use electricity, petrol and other basic services and charges? The stripping away of all those efforts by Labor really set back the cause of providing for citizens in the context of a period of time where we had seen the cost of living become a major problem for low- and middle-income earners and pensioners in Australia. It effectively doubled. We saw articles in the media today reflecting on the doubling of cost-of-living issues and the essential elements for maintaining life.

This 2014 attempt to wind back these pensions, in particular in the veterans' area, caused a storm of protest in the veterans' community, as it rightly should. One article at the time in relation to those cost-cutting exercises was very illustrative of this. It was an article by Heath Aston in April 2015, as the full impact of these cuts were starting to be felt. Of course, the Abbott government was refusing to release documents which fully explained and elucidated on these things, but we knew that those changes were going to affect something like 300,000 military veterans and their spouses.

The decision in the budget papers at that time was forecast to cut $65.1 million from veterans and widows when it was to take effect in 2017, and those effects were to compound year-on-year. The government at that time also announced that it was scrapping the $800-a-year seniors supplement that Labor created and which was accessed by an estimated 29,000 veterans and their families. It was to help pay for energy, telephone and internet bills, council rates and the like.

One particularly bitter veteran, Bob Whinnen, a South Australian truck driver who fought in Vietnam, said that conscripts like him were never able to fulfil their full potential in civilian life. His quote in that article was:

We were conscripted by a Liberal-National Coalition government and they sent us there grossly ill-equipped with World War II arms. The North Vietnamese were cutting the grass with their machine guns. Now another Coalition government does this to us.

So there was a great deal of resentment and disgust at what was happening to our war widows, war orphans and veterans at that time. The Defence Force Welfare Association and the ADSO really importuned the then Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, to have a closer look at what he was doing there and to realise the folly of his ways.

I am proud of the effort that the Labor Party and the crossbenchers put in to defeat the worst aspects of what was being attempted then. Of course, that then folded over into defending Defence Force wages. At the same time as we saw that happen in the 2014 budget, later the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal effectively attempted to cut Defence Force pay and conditions. That was received with equal horror. Again, that battle was entered into by Labor and crossbenchers and we were able to achieve some relenting of that vicious attack. But we still did not achieve Labor's three per cent wage rises for Defence Force personnel.

That was a shocking situation and now, again, we are now seeing in this attempt to wind back the support for the energy supplement for our seniors a repetition of that, because it will apply across the board to all these pension and support recipients.

What a cynical move it is to say they are going to give them $75 in 'go-away money' in exchange for the $375 a year that they were going to get. What we see in that is a classic illustration of how this government has approached its time—the policy confusion over these last four years. Effectively, they begin by taking four wheels off your car and then give you one back and then ask you to congratulate them and tell them what a great job they have done. We are seeing that in the schools debate—they rip all that money out and then try and put some back in and say it is all good. We have seen that in so many policy areas this government has pursued. Really, the public are not going to cop this kind of con anymore. In this respect, it is an insult to say they will give $75 and that is it. It is a recognition that the cost-of-living pressures are real, that these energy cost increases are real, but at the same time it is saying that is all you get and you will have to make that $75 stretch for the rest of your life.

That brings us back to the government's heinous attempt to blame the carbon tax and renewable energy for these cost-of-living increases in the energy sector. You will recall that the so-called carbon tax was the source of all evil for costs on pensioners and low- and middle-income earners. That denied the truth of the situation at the time, which was that, firstly, Labor introduced a support mechanism that completely dealt with any impacts arising out of the introduction of our carbon pricing scheme. The truth of that situation—and it is the truth now—is that the increase in electricity costs is being generated by so many other aspects. In particular, there was a wide-ranging upgrade of the poles and wires in New South Wales. Massive cost increases were introduced into the system through that process.

Privatisation was also a factor in that. Sharon Beder, from the University of Wollongong, in a paper that she wrote in 2013, concluded:

The real cause of electricity price increases in eastern Australia have been: firstly the introduction of a national electricity market and the consequent price manipulation by electricity generators; secondly the shifting of risk arising from market price volatility from electricity retailers to ratepayers; and finally, the introduction of a pricing formula for electricity distribution companies which replaces investment decisions based on need and forward planning with those based on maximising rate of return. Further privatisation or deregulation is therefore a solution likely to exacerbate the problem rather solve it.

These are the sorts of things that my friends in the Electrical Trades Union and others have warned about. There will be issues for national security, the cost of electricity down the track and the reliability of the service provided. And boy, haven't we seen that played out! All of the reports that have been done since the Prime Minister's attempts to blame it on renewable energy or the heat in South Australia have been shown to be complete fallacy. Effectively, if it had not been for the investment that we saw in renewable energy, there would have been much greater impact on consumer prices because of the system capacity that is disappearing as our fossil fuel generated energy sources decline. The simple commercial reality is that no-one is going to invest in new coal-fired power generation. The decision to shut Hazlewood was a commercial decision made by companies in France and Japan based on a simple commercial analysis. If you were going to build new coal-fired power stations now, that would simply add even more to the consumer cost impact of electricity prices.

At the same time, we know that investment in renewables is an investment in long-term cheaper electricity. You can see the logic of that. For coal-fired power, you have to have a huge open-cut or subsurface coalmine and there is the effort to extract the coal, and then it has to be transported to a massive coal-fired power station, the coal has to be burnt to produce steam and then the electricity has to be generated. If you put up a wind turbine, it takes advantage of a free resource—the wind that is blowing—and a solar farm takes advantage of the free resource of the sun. When you achieve the strategic weight of that renewable energy investment, that renewable energy sector, you will see that there will over time be a significant reduction in cost provided it is all put in the context of a well-managed transition plan and a plan to manage the grid.

The most heinous impact of the failure of government policy in this area is that that transition and that management of the grid has just not happened. In the context of what is a national situation and a national energy electricity market, it was the federal government's responsibility to put in place a plan to take charge of the transition and the management of the grid. We have seen nothing happen in four years, and as a consequence the current situation has unfolded and we see impacts on consumer prices as a result. In countries where they have got this right—Denmark, for example—they are already withdrawing subsidies from the renewable energy sector because it is now well and truly standing on its own two feet and undercutting fossil fuel sources.

We have also seen in our country, apart from the gaming of the system by private operators, the impact of gas policy. The government has failed to adopt national interest tests up until now in relation to gas, and that has created a massive problem. Without moving rapidly to even greater sources of renewable energy, energy markets have to fall back on gas as the transition fuel, as the mechanism with which to manage peaks. The situation that has evolved in relation to gas exports has had a massive impact on the domestic price of gas. The interests of ordinary Australians have been sold out by governments that have been prepared in this country at state and federal levels to sacrifice consumers' interests for the export buck when at the same time in those early days we seemed to be getting nothing back from exports because of the concessions that were made to them.

Obviously a number of factors have caused these price increases, but what we know is that they are going to continue in the short term. There have been forecasts of price rises increasing by another 40 per cent or so in time to come. The government have completely disregarded all the best advice that could be offered to them on how to achieve efficiency in the energy market—advice from, initially, Mr Shergold, the Productivity Commission, the OECD and the IMF. They did not follow the example of Conservative colleagues in the UK, Germany and New Zealand, and they were not prepared to get involved in energy markets with China, Japan, South Korea, California, Canada, Europe et cetera. We are going to see price rises because they are ignoring the advice of all of these bodies, including the Young Nationals, the National Farmers Federation, all of business, the energy market operators and even their own Chief Scientist, Dr Finkel—a scientist they appointed, who has said time and time again that an emissions intensity scheme not only is going to be the way to achieve our outcomes here but also will reduce the impact for consumers, and it is the most cost-effective way to do that and to transition effectively to a decarbonised energy generation sector. It is time the government woke up to that and did not make pensioners pay the price for their bad policy

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

I also seek to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Energy Assistance Payment and Pensioner Concession Card) Bill 2017. The bill has two purposes: firstly, in providing a one-off energy assistance payment, which will apply to nearly four million pensioners; secondly, in reinstating the pensioner concession card, which I understand will be provided to some 92,000 people who, since 1 January this year, have no longer been eligible for the pensioner concession card due to the changing of the assets test. Let there be no doubt that we will support this bill because we are committed to supporting the most vulnerable and most disadvantaged in the community. That is not exactly why the government is doing this, by the way, but I will come to that.

Labor will always move to hold the government to account. We will not let the government get away with the savage and unfair cuts to Australian pensioners. We will not let the government fool everyday Australians into thinking that they care about pensioners. History has shown us differently. Time and time again, we have seen what the Liberals do in terms of the notion of fairness. The fairness certainly does not ring true in this current budget. If you go back into the last four budgets, you can also see that one constant theme was they could retrieve money from some of the most vulnerable in our community. Some of the most vulnerable people are our age pensioners who rely on disability support.

The past four budgets of the Abbott-Turnbull government have certainly been a classic example of that. Many of the measures did not get through the Senate, but they were still there. They were referred to as the 'zombie measures'. Bear in mind that in 2013 when the member for Warringah, Tony Abbott, was leader of the coalition, he went to the election promising that there would be no changes that would impact on pensioners. In their very first budget after they formed government, the 2014 budget had limitations put on the indexation that would be applied to pensions. They moved straightaway to impact the cuts on pensioners. They moved straightaway to take the energy supplement off pensioners and people that were living on disability support pensions and people on Newstart.

Simply because this bill comes to us today and says that there is some additional money being put out to pensioners, it does not mean that they have changed their spots on this. They have not changed at all when it comes to addressing the issue of fairness and decency for some of those who are the most vulnerable people in our community. Bear in mind, this government, as it stands now, is wedded to a retirement age of 70 before people can receive the old age pension. That, by the way, will be the oldest retirement age in the developed world for receiving a state-funded pension for retirement.

I would like to think that members opposite might reflect on this a little. I know many of them are a lot younger than 70 years of age, but, perhaps, some of them speak to their parents. Do they really think that they can expect people to work—and some of those people are going to be without assets and are going to be working in construction and other labouring-based industries—until they are 70 before they can attract a pension? I know that the people I used to represent before coming into parliament, the police officers of the country, have all assured me that they would not want to be out on trucks wrestling drunks and out at pubs, and things like that, at 70 years of age. These people opposite just do not get that. There has to be fairness and decency in the way that we treat people in our community. Simply trying to jack up retirement age is not one of the ways to do that, particularly when they have a view that, whilst they cannot find money to treat pensioners fairly and they cannot find the money to support the indexation of pensions, they can find $65 billion for tax cuts to big business—many of which will be multinationals, so the profits will go offshore. They can do that okay but fail to actually look after the vulnerable in our community. We on this side of the House will never walk away from people who do not have a large voice or footprint in terms of what they can and cannot demand. We will always speak up for them. We will be the ones always fighting to make sure that they get a fair deal.

In schedule 1 of the bill the government are offering a one-off energy assistance to pensioners of $75. About four million pensioners that will get that. But do not forget that the government also have a plan to actually take away from pensioners the energy assistance supplement of $365 that applies each year. These pensioners are already receiving that. That is going to be taken away and they are going to be given $75. As the member for Eden-Monaro said, it is like having someone take four tyres off your car and then give one back and expect to get a pat on the back for being generous. The government are physically taking that money away and simply saying, 'Because we're going to give them $75 that should make a difference.'

Bear in mind that this is an energy assistance payment. It has been very quiet from many of those who ranted and raved on that side of the House in the last term of the government about energy prices going up. I cannot speak for everyone, but I know in New South Wales energy prices just about doubled. The fact that they have doubled means that everyone is having to dig a bit deeper to pay for their energy costs. But people that are pensioners cannot decide to just go and work another shift, get some overtime or take on a casual job to make up the difference. People who are on an age pension do not get those opportunities. The energy supplement of $365 a year was there to help make up that difference, and that is now being taken away. As I said, we will not oppose the bill because it is going to put money out there—the $75 payment—but we will certainly move to resist those other aspects trying to restrict the ongoing energy supplement of $365 a year being paid to pensioners in this country.

Often I wonder about the government and the way they reflect on some of the most vulnerable in the community. To be quite honest about it, it is not that the pensioners are all going to get together and outvote them; pensioners probably do not have that sort of political power. It is not that they are going to have placards in front of the member for Wentworth's office, because that is probably not what pensioners do. People who have made a lifetime of contribution to this country are entitled to be treated fairly and decently. We only have to look back to 2013, when those who formed this government said there would be no change to issues such as pensions, education and health. Just look to see what they have done in their time in government. They have moved on each and every one of those areas. They have moved to make those changes. They have moved to make cuts and to make it more difficult for the vulnerable in our community to live.

The other aspect of this bill seeks to perform a well overdue backflip. It is going to actually return the pensioner concession card to people who did have it but, due to a change to the asset test, became ineligible for that pensioner concession card on 1 January this year. It is a much overdue backflip. It is trying to right a wrong they created. This is another broken promise by this government. The former Treasurer, Joe Hockey, who was the member for North Sydney, when he stood up and spoke in this parliament made it very clear:

… anyone who currently has a Pensioner Concession Card will continue to receive a concession card that provides the same benefits …

Clearly that just did not happen, because it is changed, so we have this backflip occurring now. They are trying to, again, say that they are being magnanimous to the pensioners out there, that they are doing something for them. What they are not saying is that they are correcting something that they created, and that is the asset test that made these people ineligible to hold the card they once held.

There is the temptation to come into the parliament and talk just about the theory of these things. But those of us who actually get out and among the community, who actually talk to real people, really start to see how it impacts. One of my constituents visited my office about this. Marian Parkin came to see me about what this would mean to her. She is one of those 92,000 people who lost their pensioner concession card. As she said, she and her husband relied on the card heavily. It got them through the hardships of daily life. For example, she indicated to me that prior to losing the pensioner card she would receive water bills of about $88 a year in Sydney. I suppose for a pensioner that is about average. But now those water bills, without any increase in her and her husband's use of water, are just a little under $300 a year. So, her position is being further impacted. It certainly does not help when the government takes away these concessions and then expects people who have no ability to raise additional income, other than borrowing from family members, to just meet the rising costs of living.

This may not mean much to those sitting opposite, but elderly Australians deserve to see that they will be treated with fairness and decency, whichever government is in power. Part of the reason for pulling this back in the first place was to make good on a promise to give a $65 billion tax cut. That certainly does not go down well with pensioners, the people who are on fixed incomes or the working families out there. People think that first and foremost we look after our own. We know that a majority of the tax cut is going to multinational companies and will find its way overseas. I think countries like Australia are in a very good place. We know that countries like Australia are sought-after investment destinations. Yet we are depriving our own. We cannot find the money to look after schools. We cannot find the money to keep our health system free of Medicare cuts. And we cannot find the money to treat pensioners with fairness and decency. But we can, as of 1 July this year, ensure that anyone who is earning $1 million a year will get a tax cut in the vicinity of $16½ thousand—while everyone else, by the way, will have a tax increase, and the government will pursue its endeavour of giving big business a tax cut of $65 billion.

This is a government that has misled vulnerable Australians from time to time. Right from the election in 2013, this government has promised that there will be no changes to the pension. But, despite the promise, after six months of being in government, it moved to cut pensions as quickly as it could. It falls to us to actually stand up for those who do not have a strong voice in our community. (Time expired)

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am proud to be part of a government that values the contributions of senior Australians to our country. There is no doubt that we live in the best country in the world. It is a fantastic country. People from all over the world want to come and live here. Part of that is what senior Australians have left us. For many generations before us and the current generation of seniors who are self-funded retirees and pensioners, their work, their contribution through volunteering and their involvement in the community have made Australia the great country that it is. The Turnbull government recognises that, and I am proud to be part of a government that does.

I am also be proud to be part of a government that backs the families of those seniors. The government recognises and is working to make sure that they get the most out of every dollar that they earn. I am proud to be part of a government that supports the vulnerable and casts a secure net under Australians who find themselves falling on hard times. I am proud to be part of a government that has enormous respect for our veterans, those who have been prepared to pay with their lives so that we all may be free.

I am particularly proud to be able to rise to speak today on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Energy Assistance Payment and Pensioner Concession Card) Bill 2017. That is because the bill provides a one-off energy assistance payment to recipients of the age pension, the disability support pension, the parenting payment single and certain veterans' payments. Approximately 3.8 million people will benefit, which is great news. In addition to providing energy assistance payments, the bill will provide a pensioner concession card to former social security pensioners and receivers of veterans' payments cancelled with the rebalancing of the pension assets test by Social Services Legislation Amendment Act 2015. This is important because the coalition has been listening to people in their electorates, and that is why this card is being restored. As a result of losing their concession card, former pensioners also lost access to hearing services from the Department of Health as well as access to some state and local government and private enterprise concessions outside the Commonwealth jurisdiction. It could have been Brisbane City Council rates or Moreton Bay Regional Council rates, or it might have been car registration. So this change to restore the card and this one-off energy supplement are very important. I am proud to say that we are listening to the people in our electorates, as is the minister, and I very much support this bill.

But I have to say that this amendment from Labor is a bit rich, particularly coming from the member for Jagajaga. Australians know that Labor cannot be trusted with energy prices. Labor cannot be trusted when it comes to balancing the budget, and they flip-flop on all sorts of different issues, which I would just like to highlight.

We will hear the member for Jagajaga come in and sum up in a minute and talk about how terrible we are, but you know what? The people in my electorate know that the member for Jagajaga brought in the world's largest carbon tax, which I was elected under in 2013 and we said we would scrap. They also know that the members for Moreton, Whitlam, Eden-Monaro and Fowler also voted for that carbon tax. They all voted for it, every one of them sitting over there that get up and speak on this bill. The words that come out of their mouths in relation to energy prices are absolutely hypocritical. They brought in the biggest carbon tax on the back of their Prime Minister Gillard at the time saying, 'There will be no carbon tax under any government that I lead.'

Do you think Australians have forgotten that? I do not think so. Not in my electorate, because every pensioner that went down to the RSL for a meal got hit with the carbon tax. Refrigeration prices, gas prices, all of this that the poor old RSL had to pay, and at the local pub where they went for a counter meal, the pensioners got hit with, and hit with hard. They were hit really hard. I remember the Bracken Ridge Tavern in my electorate in 2013 telling me that they had a bloody carbon tax bill—excuse me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw that comment—of $120,000 a year. And do you think that is not passed on to pensioners when they go down to eat? They want to talk about a supplement, a lousy 365 bucks a year that they gave, because people's electricity bills went up by 50 per cent. So their home electricity bill went through the roof, they got hit with it down at the local pub as well, or the RSL, for a counter meal. And, somehow, they are sticking up for pensioners? Australians have not forgotten. We will keep reminding them, no doubt about that.

We also have Labor's ridiculous renewable energy policy of 50 per cent by 2030, where we are seeing a rush to renewables. It is so much so that in states like South Australia they are having problems with supply. If you get onto the NEM—the National Electricity Market—you will see that often South Australia is paying a lot more than other states, like Queensland, when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining. Once again, that is a Labor policy. And it is not only federal Labor policy. The Palaszczuk government in Queensland, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, has the same policy. It is going to see energy costs skyrocket even more.

So we will not take lectures from those opposite and the member for Jagajaga when it comes to electricity prices. The Labor Party flip-flops on so many different items, including under the leadership of Bill Shorten. That man cannot be trusted with the prime ministership of this country. When you look at what he says in relation to the NDIS, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which needs to be properly funded, one minute he thinks it is great to raise the Medicare levy and then he says he is going to vote against it! Now he says he is going to vote against it!

Ann Sudmalis (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Shame!

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Gilmore is right when she says, 'Shame!' I agree with her. One minute they are saying that needs based school funding is important and that they give a Gonski and everything, and then when Mr Gonski himself comes out with the Prime Minister and Minister Birmingham in relation to $18 billion worth of increases for schools, what do Labor do? They vote against it, because they said that it is not enough.

They cannot fund a single thing. Everyone knows that the Labor Party cannot balance the budget. The young people up in the gallery know that. That is the reason why this young generation is going to be stuck with higher taxes for generations to come, because that mob over there racked up deficits after Kevin Rudd got in and said that he was an economic conservative. My 15-year-old son could spend more than what he earns, if he were able to. It does not take a genius to come into this place and say: 'I'm going to spend more than what I have: There's a GFC—quick, that's a good excuse to rack it up. Let's rack it up. Let's give away school halls, let's give away pink batts and let's give away all the other stuff. And, while we're at it, let's whack a carbon tax on to keep the votes for the Greens on side. That's going to push up energy bills for pensioners.'

This is the modern-day Labor Party. One minute we get the member for Lilley, as Treasurer, saying that he was going to fight tooth and nail for company tax reductions. That is what he said, and the Leader of the Opposition said the same thing, 'Were going to fight for this; it's going to be great for jobs and great for small business.' Now, it is a $65 billion tax cut. So I ask the young people in the gallery and those people reading this speech at home that when we talk about company tax reductions, do you think that the government just likes to give away tax? Do you think that somehow we like to come in here and say, 'Here you go, let's hand over a bit of extra tax.' I do not think so. There is a reason for it. It supports our plan for jobs and growth, a plan that those people over there do not have. They have no plan for jobs and growth.

We have a plan that will help young people to secure a job well into the future. But I will not go off on that. I am just highlighting to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to the people in my constituency, the hypocrisy of Labor and their flip-flopping on all sorts of issues. This includes more affordable child care. We all know that parents who are wanting to get back to work are getting hit with big excesses in child care after nine months. Those over the voted against it.

And there is balancing the budget. Please, as I said before, we know that every time they run a deficit. Last time, not only did they rack up billions of dollars' worth of debt—what if our senators had not been in the Senate to make savings?—but they went into the 2016 election promising an extra $16 billion in debt, and the member for McMahon said that somehow they were going to magically balance the budget at the same time. They were going to rack up $16 billion in debt that every single person in the public gallery would have to pay for through higher taxes because of accumulating debt each year. Every single person would pay for that and every business would get hit with it. And then, when you went to buy something at a business, whether it was a bed from Harvey Norman, a counter meal at the local pub or a holiday, you would get hit with increased cost. You would get hit with increased cost, because the Labor Party thinks that businesses are cash cows. The reason we support lowering company tax is that we want to be competitive worldwide, and we know that, as the member for Lilley said—and he fought tooth and nail for it when he was Treasurer—it helps jobs.

I want to thank the crossbenchers for voting to support small business and medium businesses up to $50 million and giving them a company tax reduction. I will not thank the member opposite who was once the small business minister in 2013. He came up to my electorate in 2013 and spoke at the chamber of commerce and spoke about how good they were for small business! Give me a break, please! He upped the carbon tax.

But let me get on to state Labor. Let me get on to the Palaszczuk government, because probably everyone who is my age or above in Queensland will remember the blackouts we had in 2004. Basically, in Queensland, ever since Joh left, back in '87, we had not had any investment in our electricity system by Labor premiers. Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, you would remember that, in 2004, we had a lot of blackouts.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Member for Petrie, please sit down. The honourable member for Fenner?

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am usually loathe to interrupt my colleagues in full flight, but when they talk about the history of the Bjelke-Petersen state government, it might be the moment to draw them back to the subject of the bill.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Fenner and I—

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, but I will note, for the member for Fenner, that there had been no investment in electricity by state Labor since the National Party left in 1987.

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What has that got to do with the social services bill?

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because it is about energy pricing, mate. Wake up and listen and stop jumping in at the end of the conversation.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a wide-ranging debate, Member for Fenner. It is a wide-ranging debate.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are happy for energy pricing to go up for pensioners, right? You are happy for energy prices to go up. But state Labor borrowed billions of dollars. If there are any Queenslanders here, do you know what they are doing now? Do you know what the Palaszczuk government are doing? They owe $80 billion in Queensland, and they are getting billions of that money and they are putting it on to Energy Queensland, which is a merger of Energex and Ergon; they are putting it onto CS Energy, which is a generator in Queensland, and Stanwell, which is a generator—all state-government-owned assets—and they are saying, 'We don't owe any money. The Queensland government doesn't owe any money. That belongs to the energy generators and distributors.' And this mob here wonder why energy prices are going up! We have just had state Labor, the Palaszczuk government, offload some $10 billion worth of their debt onto their own energy providers. They moved billions of dollars. They also gold-plated poles and wires.

So the Australian public know that these two members over here—I cannot blame the guy from Tassie up the back; he has only just come in—along with everyone else, voted for the carbon tax. And now they come in here and try to tell us that we are not doing enough to help pensioners with energy pricing.

I would like to quote the minister here. He said this morning:

The government will continue to prioritise energy security and affordability. The 2017-18 budget includes a $265 million energy package that will ensure Australia maintains a secure, reliable and competitive energy system into the future. Amongst a range of measures, it provides funding to expand gas supply, makes finance available to build a solar thermal plant and provides additional funding for the Australian Energy Regulator to scrutinise energy providers to ensure they are serving consumers' needs.

He also spoke about Prime Minister Turnbull's plan for Snowy 2.0, which is a great plan that he is acting on, that he is implementing, that he has made a decision on, to help with our energy supply, which is very, very important. The minister also spoke about gas-fired generation, saying how it is an important part of our electricity system and saying that the higher the price of gas the higher the price of electricity, and calling on the state governments, particularly Victoria's, to lift the moratoriums to allow for more supply of gas, so that pensioners are not getting hit with higher gas prices.

The Australian public are awake up to Labor; they are right onto them. They know that Labor cannot balance the budget and that, every time they cannot, that pushes up the cost for people. They know that Labor cannot be trusted but the coalition can.

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all of the members for their contributions, particularly the member who has just spoken for his excellent contribution to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Energy Assistance Payment and Pensioner Concession Card) Bill 2017. Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, as you are aware, the bill provides for a one-off energy assistance payment to welfare recipients who have a limited ability to earn additional income, and the bill reinstates the pensioner concession card to more than 92,000 former pensioners who ceased being eligible for a pension on 1 January 2017 due to the rebalancing of the pension assets test. So the bill provides for a one-off energy assistance payment to recipients of the age pension, disability support pension, parenting payment single, and veterans and their partners paid the service pension, the income support supplement or relevant compensation payments who are eligible for payment and residing in Australia on 20 June 2017, the test date. This payment is to assist them with their energy costs. The energy assistance payment will be $75 for singles and $62.50 for each member of a couple and will provide additional assistance to individuals, totalling 3.8 million Australians.

The bill will also reinstate the pensioner concession card to about 92,300 former pension recipients. These former pensioners lost their entitlement to the pensioner concession card when they ceased being eligible for the pension on 1 January 2017 due to the rebalancing of the pension assets test. They will once again be eligible for the card. To maintain their current benefits, those former pensioners issued with a Commonwealth seniors health card will also retain that card. As the pensioner concession card provides all the benefits of the healthcare card, the healthcare card will become redundant and will be deactivated for those former pensioners issued with a healthcare card on 1 January 2017 due to the rebalancing of the pension assets test.

I might note here in closing that, in response to the amendment to this bill moved by the member for Jagajaga, it will probably not come as a surprise to members opposite that I can confirm the government will not be supporting that amendment. I would also note that that amendment is in effect something of a protest. Despite the protests of members opposite, when they delivered their election costings to the Australian people at the last election, the absolute fact is that they failed to reverse and thereby adopted the exact measures that they now continually protest. So we can be absolutely clear as a matter of fact that Labor adopted the rebalancing of the pension assets test. They adopted the measure, they took the savings and they spent the savings. We can confirm, to be absolutely clear, that Labor adopted changes to the schoolkids bonus. They took those savings, they banked those savings and they spent those saving. We can also be absolutely clear that, at the 2016 election—in the election policy that they took to the Australian people and that the Australian people took in good faith—they adopted ending the carbon tax compensation for new entrants to the welfare system—that is, they adopted our position, which is to end compensation for a tax that no longer exists.

It does take, I think, a very thorough-going devotion to fantasy when you can both oppose and support a measure all at the same time—but that is a devotion to fantasy that is being repeated with great regularity. Members opposite with respect to the NDIS funding gap claim to be able to spend savings three times. For years members opposite have said that they want simpler, more affordable child care, and then they voted against it. For years members opposite have said that they support needs based school funding, but now they intend to vote against it. For years they have said that they fully support the NDIS, but now they oppose the very mechanism that they have always suggested is the fairest way to fully fund the NDIS. So I would encourage those opposite to be, at the very least, up-front, genuine and transparent with the Australian people. It is an untenable position to take to an election, a full general election, the adoption of a savings measure and then continually try and convince the Australian people that you are in actual fact opposing it.

Where measures have been supported at an election they should be supported when the government moves those measures in parliament. These measures are designed to improve the sustainability of the welfare system, which is no doubt why they were agreed to by members opposite at the 2016 election. The coalition says what it will do. We are transparent. We are open. We take challenging and difficult decisions in the broader interests of the Australian people, and it is these decisions that are allowing us to plot a real and consistent path back to surplus. In closing, the bill acts on the government's commitments outlined in the 2017-18 budget. I commend the bill to the House.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Jagajaga has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The question now is that the bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.