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

The first thing to say about the consultation process is that the Harmer pension review did canvass these issues, as did a lot of the submissions. There was a general review of the issues around pensions and there were over 2,000 submissions. It was, of course, a recommendation arising out of the Harmer review, although I concede that was only released in line with the budget papers.

The key point is that this is a small step that tries to deal with a long-term major shift in the demographics of this country. While the previous government talked about intergenerational reports and such things for a long time, very little was done to respond to those challenges. It is a big issue for me in the Immigration and Citizenship portfolio because we have an ageing workforce and from next year onwards the number of workers in the Australian economy will reduce. So we are seeing a decline in our workforce and it is a big issue for Immigration in its role in meeting that demographic change. But we do have to make policy responses to that huge demographic movement. It is the sort of policy response that other OECD countries have taken. It does have a long lead-in time and that is important because it is designed to allow people to adjust.

Senator Siewert quite rightly made the point about women and their inadequate access to superannuation compared to males because of their working experience over the course of their life. It is a really important issue and one that we have been grappling with in public policy terms for a number of years now. I think it is fair to say that we have not yet solved it but equally you do not stop doing other things because you have not solved a difficult problem. It is true to say, though, that when the new pension age is fully implemented, working Australians will have had 30 years of the superannuation guarantee. Labor made that big reform and by the time we move the pension age to 67 there will have been 30 years of compulsory superannuation in this country. We will have seen a large proportion of the population shift from reliance on the age pension to an increasing reliance on superannuation or a reliance only on part pension.

A huge shift in retirement incomes in this country is occurring and each year that shift is more marked. So we would say part of the answer to the concern is that this is another step in moving the reliance from the old age pension into the superannuation area. We think it is an important step. It obviously has to be part of a suite of other policies. But this sort of debate has been around for a long time now. While the actual measure was not specifically consulted upon by the government, it has been part of the general debate about pensions. It was part of the considerations of the Harmer review. Sooner or later someone had to bite the bullet and send the signal that these changes were going to be required.

There was a question again about people not wanting to work until age 67. I can say I am very much in that camp; I am a vote for that proposition. But I think this is a signal that people have to respond to the fact that people are living much longer and the whole basis of the age pension and the life expectancy upon which it was calculated has changed dramatically. The issues that Senator Siewert pointed out in this respect are perfectly reasonable. I used to be secretary of the Firefighters Union. They had a retirement age of 55, for the very good reason that you do not want to be going up ladders fighting fires at 65 or 67. It was an occupational response that a retirement age of 55 was more appropriate, and our superannuation schemes were organised to reflect the reality that blokes, and now women—there are increasing numbers of women in the job—were perhaps not suited to doing that at the age of 65. So there are a whole range of occupations where the argument about 65 or 67 is irrelevant. People have had to make changes in their lives, work in other areas and respond to the pressures or demands of certain jobs. So I think those changes—the way we deal with people in work, the way we allow them to work part time, the work bonus changes—are helpful in that regard.

This is really an important signal that, again—just like when the Hawke-Keating government introduced compulsory superannuation—says, ‘We are having to respond to the demographics and we are putting in a different policy framework for support in retirement.’ This signals another important response to the realities of Australian society and the changing demographics. We think it is important that this change occur now and that we continue to deal with the other issues which senators quite rightly raise as important issues. I think it is like the debate we had about alcopops. You cannot solve all the alcohol related health issues with one piece of legislation. We see this as a really important step; it is an important signalling of what needs to occur in public policy. We think there is some urgency in taking these steps because we cannot keep putting off dealing with the issues that are confronting Australian society.