Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have listened to the considered contributions from both Senator Polley and Senator Madigan and I am fortified in my view that this is a government which is totally out of touch with the needs of Australians. There is no more compelling evidence of this than these two budget bills which are the subject of debate today. There is no greater evidence of the fact that this is a government which is based on broken promises and twisted priorities.

As I have been sitting here I have received an email from one of my constituents in relation to the pension—'Hands off the pension'. I would like to read that email: 'Dear Senator, I am very concerned about the proposed changes to the age pension announced in the May budget, which you will have to vote on soon. As a person who has to be careful to make ends meet on the pension, I am not sure how I would manage if my income was reduced in any way. I understand that the proposed changes to the way the pension is indexed, for example, would mean a cut of $80 a week over 10 years to the single pension, which seems like a huge amount when it is already a stretch for me to pay my bills, buy my groceries and get to important appointments. I just don't have any way to make up that difference. I implore you to seriously consider the impacts of the pension changes on people like me and vote against these harsh measures, which take such a large slice of the income of age pensioners, especially when others who are better off are not being asked to contribute.' That is from one of my constituents by the name of Margaret.

It is not possible to traverse the full range of cruel budget measures that are the subject of these two bills, but I do want to touch on a couple of them, and I make the observation that Australians did not vote for $7½ billion in cuts in family payments. I know it has been said before, but I want to touch on the fact that there is absolutely no justification for this savage and heartless attack on the more vulnerable in our community. The government has sought to justify what it is doing on the basis of the budget emergency, and we have heard speaker after speaker busting that myth and saying quite clearly that our fiscal position is fundamentally strong. We have a low debt-to-GDP ratio, a AAA credit rating and low inflation. The other justification this government attempts to use is that somehow welfare spending is out of control, and of course that justification does not bear close scrutiny either. When we look at the facts we see that Australia is the spends the second-lowest amount on welfare in the OECD. In 2013 that constituted 8.6 per cent of GDP, in comparison with the OECD average of 13 per cent. How does this government justify these savage attacks on the more vulnerable in our community?

As I said, I want to focus on just a couple of these changes. Firstly, the Newstart change: it is quite clearly one of the harshest welfare measures introduced in our country's history—so harsh, in fact, that it was recently the subject of an inquiry by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, and the report on that has been handed down. That report investigated the issue of the 26-week waiting period for social security payments for under-30-year-olds, and the committee sought the advice of the Minister for Social Services as to whether that 26-week waiting period was compatible with the right to social security and the right to an adequate standard of living and, in particular, whether the proposed changes were aimed at achieving a legitimate objective, whether there is a rational connection between the limitation and that objective and whether the limitation is a reasonable and proportionate measure for the achievement of that objective. The minister responded to the committee's request for information. Suffice to say that the committee was somewhat nonplussed by the minister's response. It noted that the response did not provide any further information as to how young people are to sustain themselves during a six-month period without social security. The committee noted in its original assessment that information regarding the likely impact of the measure on individuals and their families and about how individuals who are subject to the measure will retain access to adequate shelter and food is necessary in order to assess the human rights compatibility of this measure. The finding of the committee was that the measure is incompatible with the right to social security and the right to an adequate standard of living. That is an indictment of this government and these harsh measures it has sought to introduce.

In passing, I mention also that the same committee investigated the issue of whether there was potential indirect discrimination against women arising from these bills. Once again, the committee invited the Minister for Social Services to provide a response to their concerns in that regard, and I wish to quote the committee's comments following the minister's advice being received:

The committee notes the minister's advice that the measures affect all recipients, regardless of their gender. While the measures therefore appear neutral on their face, the committee remains concerned that they may have a greater impact on women than men, as women are more likely to be recipients of social security and particularly payments provided to the primary caregiver of children.

The committee then went on to seek further advice from the minister about that. Once again, it is an indictment of the actions of this government in addressing this issue.

There have been many organisations and community stakeholders that have condemned various aspects of the budget, and I will address the comments made by the Australian Council of Social Service—in particular, its response to the report I just quoted from. It is ACOSS's estimate that 100,000 young people are affected by this particular measure in respect of the waiting period.

I note that ACOSS made reference in their media statement yesterday that in their view the measure would see the government breach its part of the mutual obligation deal. I was interested in that because I heard Senator Abetz yesterday talking about mutual obligation. It is worthwhile reflecting on the fact that, with the removal of the Newstart benefit for a six-month period, the government is in breach of its mutual obligation. Governments have a duty to provide income support and to help people get a job, while people who are unemployed are required to search for jobs and participate in employment programs. This penalty being imposed on young people is totally unwarranted and, as I say, a breach of the mutual obligation deal.

This government is not only hell-bent on attacking social welfare for young people; it is also conducting a war of attrition on the aged. I draw the Senate's attention to the cuts for older Australians which are part of these bills, the indexation of the age pension by CPI and the raising of the age pension qualifying age to 70. Labor believes that the indexing of the age pension by CPI only will erode the purchasing power of the pension and diminish the living standards of Australia's 2.3 million age pensioners. On the issue of the age pension qualifying age being raised to 70, I make the point that, for many of the workers employed in physically demanding work, working to 70 will be a significant challenge. In my work as an official of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association, prior to my becoming a senator, I had many interactions with members employed in the retail industry, the fast food industry and distribution centres. My heart particularly goes out to workers in distribution centres. Warehousing involves heavy lifting on a day-to-day basis—backbreaking work which takes its toll on the human body over an extended period—and for those people this raising of the retirement age will be an intolerable burden. I call on the government to reconsider particularly this aspect of the bills. Labor is also concerned that raising the retirement age to 70 could lead to a large cohort of mature-age unemployed people who will be unable to overcome discrimination in the workforce to find work in their sixties.

I have touched on some of the feedback from community stakeholders and I will touch on a number of other areas of feedback that bear upon these bills. National Seniors Australia have said that 'Joe Hockey's first budget is full of little nasties'. The CEO of the St Vincent de Paul Society, John Falzon, has said:

There are measures in this budget that rip the guts out of what remains of a fair and egalitarian Australia.

Industry Super Australia says it is too much to expect those in manual occupations to work until they are 70. Going back to ACOSS, the ACOSS submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee's inquiry into the social services bills said:

… we strongly oppose budget measures which would impose an unfair burden on those least able to carry it. This includes changes to social security payments … which are likely to increase poverty and inequality in Australia and cause great hardship and suffering.

In summary, this government has misled on Medicare, pensions and 'no new taxes'. The Prime Minister said he would help families with the real cost of raising children, yet his government is cutting $7.5 billion in family payments—cuts which will leave some families around $6,000 a year worse off. The Prime Minister also promised there would be no cuts to pensions. He has broken that promise. This government wants to cut pensions and make Australians work for longer. So where does that leave us? Now we are left with the remnants of a tired, lost and friendless budget which has been comprehensively rejected by the Australian public—a budget still wandering these corridors in October looking for a bed, a couch, anywhere to have a good lie down and be put to rest.