Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Senator Evans) and the President to questions without notice asked by Senators Humphries and Troeth and the Leader of the Australian Greens (Senator Bob Brown) today relating to the age pension.

We have heard some interesting answers today from Senator Evans and others as to why the government believes that the introduction of the Urgent Relief for Single Age Pensioners Bill 2008 in the Senate is unconstitutional. Both Senator Evans, as the leader, and I tabled, or attempted to table, advice on opposing sides of this question. The advice that Senator Minchin received from the Clerk of the Senate, Mr Harry Evans, as I mentioned in my question, said:

There is no barrier to the introduction of such a bill in the Senate and a bill to increase the rate of age pension does not need to contain an appropriation of money.

Mr Evans goes on:

Bills which involved increased expenditure from appropriations which have already been made or will be made in the future are commonly introduced in the Senate. Such bills have originated in the Senate since 1901.

And I think Senator Brown mentioned that the right of the Senate to initiate such bills was expounded in a ruling by President Givens in 1921. That was a long time ago, but since then many government bills have fallen into that category. I further quote from the letter from the Clerk of the Senate, Mr Evans:

To choose one example from 2007, the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2007, initiated in the Senate, extended pharmaceutical benefits in respect of prescriptions issued by optometrists. The explanatory memorandum accompanying the bill noted that money had already been appropriated to cover the additional costs to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Because the bill did not appropriate the extra money required for its operation, it was not an appropriation bill and therefore could be initiated in the Senate. There are several other such examples of government bills in recent times.

Further to his remarks in answering my question, Senator Evans maintained that pensioners were not impressed by stunts. Our move is not a stunt; it is a genuine attempt to address the economic hardship that is being felt by single age pensioners in comparison to age pensioner couples in recognising the fact that single pensioners, largely living by themselves, still have to pay many of the costs associated with housing, utilities and so on, in keeping up their standard of living. Both the Prime Minister and Ms Gillard have agreed that they could not live on the single age pension.

Senator Evans maintains that the government is taking on serious policy work. In the 164 reviews and committees commissioned by this government, why is the safeguarding of some of the most vulnerable people in our community, who have no other recourse for their economic livelihood, not regarded as serious policy work? Why are they waiting until at least the next budget to look at that as a serious policy issue?

It is not true that those on this side of the chamber, the opposition, did nothing. To give you an example, we linked age pensions to 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings and legislated that the age pension be set at at least 25 per cent or increased by CPI, whichever was the greater. As a result, the maximum single rate of pension is now $1,892 per annum higher than it would have been otherwise. We also legislated to maintain pensions at two per cent a year above the rate of inflation.

What we are calling for is perfectly reasonable. The increase of $30 per week in our bill will have the effect of increasing the rate of the single age pension to two-thirds the rate of the couple age pension. As well, from 20 September, with this increase the single age pension will increase to $311.05 per week. The base rate of the couple age pension will not change. If we introduce this now, this measure will cost up to $1 billion until the end of the current financial year and it will increase pension payments for over 850,000 single age pensioners. (Time expired)