Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

At the outset, I indicate that I will not be supporting this bill. The government talks a lot about the need to repair the budget and end the age of entitlement. In theory, I have no problems with either of those aims, but I cannot understand why the government has chosen again and again to try to squeeze those savings from social services, health and education, which are arguably the least entitled sectors of our society.

Why would we seek to limit access to social services payments even further when we have companies receiving huge corporate tax breaks? I am not saying those tax breaks are inappropriate; I saying that it is a question of balance. If you are going to cut from one sector, you should cut fairly, equally and proportionately in respect of those cuts. For instance, when mining companies receive billion-dollar profits and are still receiving a diesel fuel rebate, that needs to be taken into account. I am not saying that we should get rid of the diesel fuel rebate; I am saying that they are not getting a cut to that, but you have pensioners getting a cut with this seniors supplement cut that is being proposed—and when companies like Apple and Google can funnel their profits offshore and avoid paying tax in Australia.

The government needs to understand that these measures are hurting their own constituents and, in many cases, their own voters. Anyone and everyone who has spoken to me about these budget measures has heard the story of my Aunt Effie. A big cheerio if she is listening. I am going to tell the story again for the record. My Aunt Effie is a self-funded retiree. She has been in this country for over 50 years, along with my Uncle Nick. They migrated here from Cyprus. They have both worked incredibly hard. They have raised two daughters and have five wonderful grandchildren. She and her husband have worked their whole lives to support themselves and their children and they now live, like most retirees, in comfortable but modest circumstances. Effie is one of the kindest and most gentle people I know, and I think it is fair to assume that, at the last election, she probably voted for the coalition. But, when I spoke to her after the budget, for the first time in my life she was fuming and she was upset. The seniors supplement she receives allows her the rare opportunity to buy treats for her grandchildren. It is her chance to spoil them a little and it means a lot to her. Effie knows that she is better off than a lot of others, but she has to worry about power and utility bills like everyone else. She is not rolling in it; she has worked very hard to have modest but comfortable circumstances. She is angry and upset because the government that I think she voted for are going against their promises, and it is impacting on her and her friends. This is just one small story. And, as I said, Effie is in the fortunate position of being able to survive better than others without the supplement. But it is not an entitlement; it is something on which I think that, in her modest circumstances and as someone who has paid her taxes over the years and who has worked very hard doing double shifts, just like my uncle, she feels that they are being unfairly targeted.

There are many others, however, who will struggle if this payment is removed. During the Senate committee inquiry into the original social services bills, concerns were raised about the effectiveness of the supplement as a form of support. If these concerns remain, surely it would be better to examine the supplement and determine whether it should be amended rather than to withdraw it completely. My concern is that a small percentage of the population who are, for one reason or another, on small incomes are bearing the burden of the government's proposed budget savings.

Earlier this year, research from the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, NATSEM, into the budget measures found that they would have a significant impact on those who are struggling most. According to the NATSEM report, the poorest 20 per cent of Australian families will contribute $1.1 billion more than the richest households towards the budget repair. Most of this is due to family benefits, pensions and other social security payments. By contrast, the wealthiest 20 per cent of households will, in some cases, pay 40 per cent less than the poorest 20 per cent of households. I am not arguing that these savings should not be made, but I am saying that the government is going about collecting them in a way that is manifestly unfair. I am more than willing to support measures that target needless expenditure, but this is not one of them.