Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I think Senator Boswell’s question highlights the sort of economic irresponsibility and confusion that the opposition have fallen into. It is the case that many Australian pensioners are doing it very tough. They are confronting rising food prices. Electricity, gas and petrol are also going up. It is the very argument I just put that our ability to help put downward pressure on these things is in part driven by the surplus and our capacity to manage the economy in a responsible way.

It is not the case that we are fleecing pensioners, as the senator said. I note in passing that, despite all the rhetoric from the opposition, at their first opportunity in this parliament since the issue arose yesterday, they had not asked me one question about pensions. As the minister representing both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, I got not one question about pensions. So for Senator Boswell to try and raise concerns now is, I think, a little disingenuous.

Mr President, we are concerned about the plight of pensioners. That is why there is a large investment in the budget in support of pensioners and carers. That support included an increase in utilities allowance from $107 a year to $500 a year—a $400 increase in the utilities allowance to help pensioners meet the rising costs of electricity, gas and other regular payments. We also provided the one-off bonus of $500 in the budget. I note that pensioners were not provided for in the previous government’s budget papers.

The concern for pensioners by this opposition is very recent. They provided 11 budgets—or 12 budgets; I am not quite sure which—and they did nothing to address the fundamental problems about pensioners and the level of the pension. We are saying that in our first budget we have invested in trying to assist pensioners—by the increases in their allowances, by the payment of the bonus—in a way that seeks to provide more support for them. We also indicated that more needs to be done and that we need to look at the fundamentals that underpin the pension rate, and we have undertaken to do that work seriously prior to the next budget. It has been clear, and it has been reinforced by Senator Boswell’s question, that these matters are complex, that movements in the pension have consequences in other areas, be it entitlement to seniors health cards, be it the impact on the rate they are paying in a nursing home, which is a set percentage of the pension, or be it in terms of other entitlements—for instance, state housing commission rents. It is not necessarily as simple as a movement in the rate of pension leading to an increase in disposable income for pensioners; for many pensioners it would not. So it is a complex matter. It does need to be addressed seriously. The government has undertaken to address it seriously while providing short-term relief in the budget by providing extra cash payments and an increase in the utilities allowance.

The opposition have got to get their position straight on this. Senator Boswell asked me why we cannot do more for pensioners and why we are effectively means-testing the pension. We have always supported a means test of the pension. We have always said support ought to go to those most in need. That was a policy that Senator Boswell’s government supported when they were in government. But again they seem to have abandoned those sorts of economic responsibilities in opposition. (Time expired)