Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Hansard source

I will be brief because much of the contribution from Senator Brown traversed the issues that were raised in the second reading debate and have been raised in the earlier committee debate. Like Senator Coonan, I want to make a comment about carers and seniors, the group which Senator Brown has focused on in the discussion this afternoon.

We have before us the Tax Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Reduction) Bill 2008. I agree with Senator Coonan. There may be changes that benefit carers and age pensioners. Indeed the Labor government has established a process, through the total review of the tax system, to include a review of the age pension and retirement incomes more broadly. I accept the point made by Senator Brown that if you are on approximately $14,000 a year—I think he gave the figure of $270 a week as an age pensioner—it is tough. I accept that point, Senator Brown. We have established a process to consider the issues around the age pension. That is not the issue before us directly today; that is to do with the income tax reduction bill.

I have a minor point of correction. I have followed retirement incomes issues and pension and superannuation matters for a long time, and no doubt there have been significant improvements in a whole range of areas for retirees who have personal private income, whether it be superannuation income or non-superannuation income. As a general observation, it is correct to say that—and this is where I depart from Senator Coonan—if you look back over the last 12 years of the previous government there was not a great deal of attention paid to age pensioners. I am talking about full age pensioners who do not have private income. That is one of the reasons, Senator Brown, for including a thorough examination of the age pension within that tax review.

Much was made of this by the previous government. They claim that they indexed the age pension up to 25 per cent of MTAWE—I think Senator Coonan referred to average weekly earnings; it is male total average weekly earnings. I made that mistake once a couple of years ago, Senator Coonan, and I certainly read about it. It is MTAWE—male total average weekly earnings. But it was the Hawke Labor government that introduced that provision. As a matter of policy, it introduced 25 per cent of MTAWE, male total average weekly earnings. I accept that the Liberal government legislated, but it was actually the Hawke government that introduced that indexation method, and that was maintained by the Hawke-Keating governments and the previous government.