Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Assistant Minister for Social Services (Senator Fifield) to a question without notice asked by Senator Moore today relating to the indexation of pensions.

We know, and we have gone over this numerous times, that before the last election there was no discussion with anyone in the wider Australian public about any changes to the rates of payment for pensions. In fact, to the contrary, there were assurances made quite strongly that there would be no change. In fact, we were told very clearly that pensioners would welcome the new government.

However, in the very first budget there were changes put in place to pensions and, contrary to what we hear consistently from the other side, these changes to the indexation of pensions will remain a cut to the take-home payment of pensions for many pensioners in our country. This is not just for aged pensioners but for carers as well—people who, in many cases, are totally reliant on that pension for their livelihood. That is something that we took very seriously in government.

Mr Deputy President, you would remember that in 2009 there was a very detailed inquiry done that looked at pensions in Australia. It looked at the rates, it looked at the processes and it looked at the kinds of issues that were alive in our community and how people felt about this payment. As a result of that review, we brought in changes that actually made a significant difference to the way that pensions were indexed. But this was actually building on really strong work that had gone on before. Indeed, it was Mr Howard who was most vocal about the importance of the rate of pension to pensioners. He was very proud of the work that his government had done and looked at maintaining an appropriate relationship between wages across the community and those people who were in retirement, or who were caring for others and who needed that kind of support.

But what we have seen is not just a rejection of the concerns raised about the reduction in pensions but arrogance—a statement that pensions are not being cut. And there was a statement of what we could say was the 'bleeding obvious', that pensions have risen at the stated times in the cycle over the last 12 months. No-one denies that. The argument that we have been raising is quite clear: the way the age pension works—and the other pensions that come off that—is by indexation of those payments to keep the actual value of the pension real in comparison to what is happening across the community.

That, indeed, has been changed by this government. And today we heard from Minister Fifield that this change—the 2014-15 change—is still on the table. It is on the table of the minister. However, we were also told that while these things are lying on the table, that actually anyone is able to come forward with suggestions and concerns. Well, what I know is that many people have come through to all of us—and I know it would be to the minister as well—with their concerns about the real value of the pension. This is talking about people who rely on this payment. It is not necessarily people who are able to move in and out of the pension system—and there are some of those. These are people whose fortnightly livelihoods are their payments from their government.

There have been a number of surveys done by the National Council on Ageing and ACOSS, and a number of people who have looked seriously at the rate of pensions and the real impact of indexation. Calculations have been made—and they do vary. The way the current system works is that the pension is indexed by the higher rate of the three models that could be taken: CPI, wages and a particular variant that we introduced which looks at costs and issues for pensioners—three models. Depending on what is happening at the time of the change, the higher of those three indexation rates is put onto the pension. That will change from 2017 if these 2014-15 budget ideas are still on the minister's table. What we want to know is whether there has been any response to the number of concerns that have been raised about what could lead to a significant reduction in the fortnightly pension income for people reliant on that payment.

We have heard figures of $80 a week—that is a lot of money if that is your sole income. It is a lot of money for anyone who is looking at the rate— (Time expired)