Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Senator Evans. Minister, what would be the current rate of the single age pension had the Howard government continued Labor’s policy of linking the pension to the CPI only and not changed to the higher of the CPI or 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings?

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

I thank the senator for her question, although again it seems that the Liberal Party are more concentrated on stunts rather than the important issues that are at stake here. The answer, Senator, as you know, is that the pension has been benchmarked against 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings for some years.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Courtesy of?

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Hawke-Labor government.

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

That is a decision when the indexation arrangements—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sherry and others! Senator Evans is entitled to be heard during the giving of his answer.

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

As Senator Sherry rightly interjects, indexation arrangements were first put in place by the Hawke government, and there were some changes made by the previous coalition government. Both sides of parliament supported an indexation method that best sought to assist pensioners to keep pace with the changing costs of living and to retain their relativity to the movement in average weekly earnings.

Those decisions were taken by successive governments to try to ensure that pensioners did not fall behind and that they were linked to a method that best reflected the movements in the costs that face pensioners and the movements more generally in the economy. Those decisions by successive governments were good decisions and over the years they have assisted pensioners generally to keep up with the rising costs of living.

What we do know is that, over the years, pensioners have increasingly found things are tough. They have certainly found things are tough since inflation started rising under the previous government and the cost of their food, electricity, gas and petrol has been going up. We acknowledge that pensioners are doing it tough and that many of them are finding it hard to make ends meet under the current pension arrangements. That is why in the first Rudd Labor budget we made an enormous down payment to try to assist pensioners with those costs. We put a $7.5 billion down payment on reform for pensioners, carers and people with disabilities. We increased the former government’s utilities allowance from $107 per annum to $500 per annum. So we added $400 per annum to the payment introduced by the previous government which was designed to assist pensioners to meet utilities costs. There was a $400 increase in the first budget of the Rudd Labor government designed to meet those cost pressures on pensioners.

We also paid a one-off $500 bonus in the budget to pensioners and we extended that payment to groups who did not previously receive it under the previous government. So we made a range of decisions. We also brought in the indexation of the measures and we have sought to provide what relief we can for pensioners. We have also indicated that we think there needs to be some fundamental reform to pensions.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. My question was: what would the current rate be? The minister has failed to answer the question. I ask the minister to address the question.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on the point of order. I note that the Liberal senator on the other side did not argue whether it was a point of order to do with relevance. I assume that was the point that she was trying to raise. The fact that she did not mention that issue is by the by—it did go to, I think, that issue. I would humbly submit in respect of that matter that we have had a range of interjections on those specific points. As the Senate well knows, the minister has been answering the question. He has been detailing the serious issues that surround pensioners for some minutes and should be allowed to continue.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. I cannot instruct the minister on how to answer the question and the minister needs to be relevant to the question. There are 28 seconds left to answer the question. I call the minister.

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

My concentration in answering this question is on the plight of pensioners and their needs, not on more Liberal Party stunts. If you are serious about helping pensioners, focus on the real issues, not on stunts in question time. Concentrate on the real difficulties pensioners face, like this government is, and attempt to develop a good public policy response to the needs they face.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. As to the plight of pensioners, I can inform the minister that if Labor’s system had continued single pensioners would be worse off by $72.80 a fortnight and couples would be worse off by—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It must be a question. It is not a debating time. You may ask a supplementary question, and I invite you to do so.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My supplementary question is: is the minister aware of comments made today by the chairman of the Australian Catholic Social Justice Council when he said, in relation to Labor’s refusal to immediately increase the age pension and instead await a review:

It seems to me that it is urgent and I can’t see why you can’t do both.

Minister, why can’t Labor do both?

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

What the Australian public and the Catholic Social Justice Council would know is that during 11½ long years the Howard government did nothing to increase the pension rate, absolutely nothing. What they know is we took immediate measures in the budget. You can cry crocodile tears now. This government is focused on its efforts to try and assist pensioners. We made a huge down payment in the budget; we are looking at tackling the structural problems. If the opposition were serious, they would not embark on stunts, they would focus on the real issues. What we know is that in 11 long years they did nothing and now they go for stunts. They could not even raise this issue in question time on Monday. That is how serious they really are. I urge them to take the public policy considerations seriously rather than focus on stunts because, increasingly, they are an irrelevant rabble.