Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The debate on the opposition’s approach to pension policy has not just started over the last couple of days. We saw in the week or two leading up to the recent government budget cynical attempts by the opposition, jostling with the government, to scare the community, to create outrage amongst pensioners and to get our government to leak what was going to be in the upcoming budget.

We know that that happens with every budget. We know that every government is very clear that when they are preparing their budget they are trying to pull everything together so that the full budget process is announced on the night of the budget. But what we clearly had from this opposition in the period leading up to that in the media were attacks on people’s security, their fears and worries, with goading statements alleging that this government was not going to provide the pension bonus and alleging, to quote from debates we have heard from different people in this place, that the government was going to cut pensions and that it was not going to have a heart.

What we had to do at that time was respond to assure pensioners that the government was considering their issues. But, through that whole process, we could see that the opposition had no qualms about using public response, about creating a sensation of fear and about making promises that they could not keep—promises that were not in their purview to keep but, rather, a budget decision. What they were doing was using that to gain a cheap political point. So, when it came through, when the budget was handed down and the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and the various ministers worked through the number of provisions that were made in that budget looking at ensuring that pensioners got their bonuses and ensuring that the carers and people on other forms of payments also received acknowledgement and payment in that budget, and when we also saw that we would increase the utilities allowance, giving people a massive increase in the utilities allowance over the whole 12 months—not just in one payment but in a series of payments—there was no claim made by the government that this was going to be the full response to the overwhelming needs of pensioners. At no time was that claim made. Rather, we acknowledged that consideration needed to be given to a range of changes to the system that was looking at providing support to people in need.

Through the committee process and the report that came down in March this year looking at the cost-of-living pressures on older Australians, a range of recommendations were made by that committee. Senators from all sides of this place worked together and listened to the genuine needs of pensioners in this country. What we saw was that there was a range of needs. It is very difficult just to talk about the single word ‘pensioner’ because that covers so many people. But what we did acknowledge and identify, as a unified Senate, was that there needed to be clear consideration given to the whole system. What has been happening for too long has been that this complex system has had a range of bandaid measures put in place so that the clear inequities of this system have not been identified and a government response made.

That is what we are doing with the Harmer inquiry. It is not an easy job, but we are working with pensioners and people who know this system across the whole country. It is not the cheap, one-line media grab. It is way too easy to do that, and I think so many of us have fallen for that trick. It is easy to get a response by making a statement out there that can give you a quick response, but what is wrong and what is very, very sad in this whole process is that what pensioners are now seeing is an expectation that has been created, without the background, without the acknowledgement of how the system needs to be changed in the long term. Figures are being thrown around, and the confusion and fear that that is causing is wrong.

That was not the intent of the Senate inquiry that worked on the issues that were faced by older Australians. That is not the intent of people who are working in the system now. But figures are being thrown around and what we are talking about now is a significant increase. Of course that is attractive—there is no way it is not—but it does not address the underlying problems, it does not address the issues that we have seen raised by so many people about how flat increases can sometimes be eroded immediately by other expenses, how some people have views about bonus payments as opposed to a series of payments across a 12-month cycle. We need to get this right. (Time expired)