Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table the explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

URGENT RELIEF FOR SINGLE AGE PENSIONERS BILL 2008

This bill entitled Urgent Relief for Single Age Pensioners Bill 2008 is being introduced by the coalition to promote urgent and immediate relief for Australia’s single age pensioners who are finding it virtually impossible to live on the basic pension of $273.40 per week.

This bill provides for an immediate additional payment of $30 per week for recipients of the single age pension, recipients of the widow B Pension, and recipients of the single service age pension.

It has become necessary to take this action for these pensioners following the failure of the government to take any steps to remedy the financial stress being experienced by Australia’s most vulnerable citizens in the immediate future.

The coalition has stepped into the breach left by the government’s failure to act, following admissions by the Prime Minister and other senior ministers in the government that he, and they, would not be able to live on the single age pension.

The government’s inaction on pensions has been rightly condemned across the board. It has been compounded by the receipt in March 2008 of an 83-page submission by the Treasury addressing the inadequacy of the pension and generating options to address this need. The government has made it abundantly clear that no action will be taken until the completion of the Harmer review in February 2009 which in turn will feed into the Henry review on taxation. This is not due until the end of 2009 which means that relief for pensioners will be effectively postponed until 2010 at the earliest. This is simply not soon enough to meet the urgent and immediate need of single age pensioners for relief from the increasing cost of living pressures.

The case for an immediate increase is compelling. The Senate’s own committee inquiry into the cost of living report presented in March 2008, outlined in detail the critical circumstances of many pensioners due to the increased cost of living since November 2007, and the Howard government’s last budget.

The coalition in government had a strong record of assisting aged Australians, introducing the utilities allowance in 2005 to assist older Australians with meeting everyday household bills such as electricity and water. The coalition government increased the pension by 57 per cent in normal terms or 24 percentage points above inflation. This was through good economic management and adjustments to the pension when needed.

The coalition government legislated to set the maximum single rate of the pension to at least 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings, MTAWE. This meant that whenever pensions were adjusted for increase in the CPI, and the pension rate fell short of the 25 per cent MTAWE then there would be a top up equivalent to 25 per cent of MTAWE and, in addition, provided three one-off bonuses.

The coalition accepts that single age pensioners must have urgent relief to meet essential cost of living pressures and that they cannot wait until the Henry review is completed as proposed by the government.

The provisions in this bill will not stop or inhibit the deliberations of the Henry review, but it will provide immediate relief to our most vulnerable citizens.

Due to the careful fiscal management of the former Howard government, the Rudd Labor government has inherited surpluses of $94.4 billion dollars over five years. The government has inherited a strong fiscal position and can responsibly re-order its priorities to assist Australia’s most financially disadvantaged age pensioners who are faced with unjustified delay.

This bill will increase the single age pension, single age service pension and widow B pension by $30 per week, with effect from 20 September 2008.

The single age pension will increase from $273.40 per week to $303.40 per week. (The coalition notes that the single pension is set to increase to $281.05 per week from 20 September as a result of indexation.) So a $30 increase on this will bring the single age pension to $311.05. It will result in the single pension currently at 59.9 per cent of the couple pension, to being 66.4 per cent of the couple pension.

This one-off boost to the age single pension is the first step by the coalition to deliver a comprehensive policy in relation to pensions, income support, veterans support and carers over time. Assistance for single age pensioners is an immediate priority due to the urgent circumstances facing many recipients struggling to cope with escalating costs of living. The coalition will continue to address the further concerns being raised by pensioners and pension groups.

The coalition recognises that the single service pension is not a welfare payment, however for the purposes of this bill, the term ‘single pensioners’ refers to single recipients of the age pension, widow B pension and the age service pension.

The number of pensioners who will be affected by the provision in this new bill is 928,834 Australians, at a cost of $1.45 billion dollars.

The total of 928,834 pensioners includes 857,229 single age pensioners, 700 widow B pensioners, and 70,905 single age service pensioners.

The Rudd government has a $21 billion dollar surplus this current year inherited from the Howard government’s strong fiscal management in previous years, and must enable this immediate relief to flow to single age pensioners.

The coalition calls on the government to expedite further urgent consideration of the needs of all pensioners who cannot wait until 2010 for a comprehensive and thorough response to their needs.

The government must not dither and hide behind reviews while Australia’s most vulnerable age pensioners are living under unbearable financial stress.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The very fact that there was a wait there to determine if there were further speakers on this bill points to the failure of the opposition itself to be prepared for an extremely important piece of legislation. This is an opposition that wants to control the Senate but cannot control its own business in the Senate. That is why I moved earlier to have the Urgent Relief for Single Age Pensioners Bill 2008 dealt with later in the week. This is critically important legislation—and it is procedurally quite historic as far as the Senate is concerned—and it ought to be given due consideration.

Let me point out to the Senate that the Greens initiated this debate in this place during the tenure of the Howard government—with the coalition in government. We had been increasingly aware of the travail of more than one million pensioners in this country at a time of soaring costs for rent, food, transport, health and for the simple things that make life pleasurable, which many pensioners were going without. So we decided we would campaign strongly on this issue during the last election campaign. Neither the opposition of the day, the Labor Party, nor the government of the day, the coalition, supported the Greens in the election campaign when we were calling for both parties to commit to a $30-a-week increase in the pension.

But we have seen a change, certainly in the coalition benches, and now a proposal by the government to review pensions in the wake of that election because of the rising tide of frustration by pensioners and anger in the Australian community that pensioners have been so neglected for so long, including during the 12 budgets of the Howard government. MPs salaries were rising rapidly and CEOs salaries—and we know about them; millions of dollars per annum, even when CEOs failed their corporations—were going to obscene levels that were not warranted by the performance of the few people who were given that enormous largesse. And, generally, wages in Australia have been increasing at a rate above that of former wage earners who contributed so much to this country in the form of one to two million pensioners. The Greens proudly continued to argue that pensioners should get an increase.

I want to pay tribute to pensioners themselves and to their organisations. They do not want to get out on the street and protest. They do not want to have to be haranguing governments, but they saw the most extraordinary double standard brought in by the big parties. During the election campaign both the then Prime Minister, Mr Howard, and the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Rudd, committed in the first week to 31 thousand million dollars in tax cuts over three years. That was on top of $20 billion in the 2006-07 budget. Over $50 billion in tax cuts was loaded towards the rich end of society. The richer you were the bigger the windfall. Pensioners got nothing.

In the 2008 budget, the first budget of the Rudd government, that was how it stayed. The big end of town got an enormous windfall through the tax cuts, which by the way needed no inquiry, no investigation—nothing at all. It was simply the Prime Minister saying, ‘I am keeping an election commitment where I follow through the Howard policy of fostering the big end of town while the small end of town gets nothing—not a razoo.’ There was a $500 one-off payment—the same as there was in the last Howard-Costello budget. They were saying, ‘Get us through the election on $500 arriving in your letterbox just before the election. Vote for us’—then nothing. It is not like the tax cuts, which go on and on with massive amounts of money going to the already rich, but nothing to the poor. And they added a utilities bonus. It was something like—on my quick calculation—a couple of dollars a week to help out with paying bills. And it was at a time when the increase in the costs for pensioners took that away before they got it.

What has happened here is an appalling disregard for people who cannot speak up and are not seen around the halls of power. But there have been huge windfalls for those who have got lobbying buildings just across the way from Parliament House and come in here and have an open door to the office of serial prime ministers and ministers.

This is manifestly unjust—a breakdown, really, in the democratic process, if you consider that everybody is of equal value in the society that you represent. So the Greens have campaigned down the line. Seeing the traction in this campaign, the opposition, Family First and others have come aboard. That is a good thing because, if you are going to develop policy, you have to hear and see the need for it rising in the community.

Today, this has now become so politically potent. With the government saying to pensioners, ‘Wait till next year’, the coalition have done a 180-degree backflip. At the last election they said, ‘No, we won’t give a $30 increase.’ Now they are saying, ‘We not only insist on a $30 increase; we have to have it today.’ So they circulated a bill, encapsulating the Greens policy, on Thursday and, because of the politics of it, it is before this chamber this afternoon with such rapidity that they cannot supply a second speaker. When the shadow minister sat down after a couple of minutes, which was all she could give to this bill, there was not another opposition speaker to get up—not one. What a travesty.

There is no depth or determination in this matter, as far as this opposition is concerned; it is a political manoeuvre. This is really an indictment of the opposition. I know they are distracted with leadership matters, but we are here seeking leadership on behalf of the pensioners of this country. The opposition, having introduced the bill, cannot supply a second speaker and cannot even get a shadow minister to put 20 minutes into the bill. Having brought on this bill so rapidly, with no time for a Senate inquiry—we will hear about the urgency of it from Senator Fielding; there was no move for a Senate inquiry from him—the opposition suddenly says, ‘We’re going to deal with this through the second reading, and we have an amendment from Senator Fielding listing other pensioners who should be added into this mix, but there will be no inquiry.’

I ask the opposition: should you not at least be costing this matter before the Senate? Where are your estimates of how much this will cost? I moved earlier that, to enable those matters to be at least earnestly looked at, we bring up the three bills which have been costed by the government and have been a matter of considerable community debate and have them dealt with because they are to raise revenue. The revenue would not be the same amount but it would be in the order of some billions of dollars, which could help pay for the opposition’s pension increase.

Do you know what is going to happen? The opposition are going to oppose those bills. They are going to say, on the one hand, ‘Spend $2 billion or $3 billion’—and it may end up being more than that—’to give pensioners what they deserve.’ But, on the other hand, they are going to say, ‘We will not support legislation on luxury cars, on condensate’—this multibillion-dollar windfall for Woodside and other big corporations where the executives get multibillion-dollar take-home pay—’or on the Medicare levy. We won’t support the government getting that revenue, but we want to take out of the exchequer some billions of dollars.’ I say that that is not responsible. I say that, if you are going to deal with an increased expenditure coming out of the Senate, you need to look at how you are going to raise that money. If you do not think it should be through the condensate bill on the big oil and gas corporations, tell us: where are you going to get it from?

I will tell you where the Greens would get it from. Mr Acting Deputy President Hutchins, you were here when we alone, not Senator Fielding or anybody else, went to the other side of the chamber to vote against the tax cut across the board for the big end of town. We said, ‘Here is more money than is required for these pension bills and it is a responsible thing to put that money aside to pay for these pensions.’ I am going to listen carefully to Senator Fielding to see where he is going to get the money from. He supported the tax cuts; let us hear from Senator Fielding in a minute where he is going to get this money from. He is going to tell us that this is urgent and must be dealt with today, although earlier on he was saying, ‘I support a motion to get it through the second reading.’ The Greens have rescued that dislocation of this process by saying, ‘If you must deal with this bill, let’s deal with it to a determination. If you can vote on it at second reading, you can deal with the bill.’ I submit, as w8e did at the outset, that this is back-to-front; this bill should be dealt with after the three revenue-raising bills. But the chamber has determined another way. So there is a challenge to other members of this chamber.

We foreshadow that we will amend the bill to include a $30 increase for single disabled pensioners—pensioners on disability pensions—as well. We put the cost of that, along with the veterans and single age pensioners at $2.26 billion. I say to all sides of the chamber here, ‘Responsibly look at how you are going to deal with the need to raise that money.’ If you do not like the Greens saying ‘take it off the tax cuts of people earning more than $75,000 a year’—which includes MPs—state where you are going to get it from. It is not up to the Senate, I believe, simply to say ‘spend more money’, unless it responsibly says, ‘and here is where we will get it from’. The Greens have already done that. We would revisit the tax cuts for the already wealthy if need be. That is not going to happen, so let’s at least look at the revenue-raising bills that the government has brought in here.

Let me say this: the opposition’s procedure in here today is a debacle. It is extraordinary to race such an important bill, with such a multibillion-dollar price tag attached to it, into the Senate the working morning after it was circulated and then not be able to supply a second speaker to such an important and urgent piece of legislation. I have never seen that happen before in my 11 years in the Senate—not ever—and I have seen some defaults on responsible procedure in this place. But this is an opposition which, for 11 years, turned its back on pensioners and their need to get an increase. It has changed that since the elections and said, ‘Now we support single pensioners getting an increase of $30 until the next budget,’ which is when the Greens hope we will see $100 increase across the board for pensions. But the opposition supported the tax cuts. They supported the big end of town getting the money as a priority. Now they have brought this piece of legislation in because the plight of pensioners is embarrassing; it is awful. It is just terrible that people out there who worked their lives for this country have to count their 5c pieces to wonder whether they can afford to catch a bus to visit their children or their grandchildren.

I was in Port Macquarie during the Lyne by-election and a pensioner said to me: ‘We have a little group that meets and we talk about these things. When we go home on these winter nights we go to bed at eight o’clock and listen to the radio because we cannot afford to have the radiator on. It puts power bills up to a point where we can’t afford them.’ That is just terrible in this wealthy country in 2008, but that is the situation that this opposition, which has rushed this bill in today and cannot supply a second speaker and could not elaborate on in the second reading speech effectively, has now taken to heart. I hope they have taken it to heart and I hope we do get a good debate out of this. I also hope it is not simply one person on each side saying: ‘Vote for it. Get it out of our way. We have done that. We have done our token observance of the need to address the problems of pensioners, now let us get on with other political matters.’ I sense that is what is happening here. I earnestly say that should not be happening here.

This matter should have been before a Senate inquiry. We have had them in the past but not to address this legislation. The urgency we are going to here prevents that now. But the urgency here does not prevent the opposition coming in to persuade the government to adopt this legislation through the full force of reasoned argument, and that is missing. If the bill were to fail or if it fails in another place should it get through here, it would be because this opposition did not come prepared and was not fair dinkum. (Time expired)

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

I do want to speak on this bill because I think the issues that underpin it are very important. The issue of the capacity for people to sustain an adequate lifestyle on the age, disability or veterans pension is an issue fundamental to a fair society. It is a really important issue. Millions of Australians rely on their pension payment for their standard of living and that means that the public policy in this area and decisions of this parliament in this area are vitally important to the living standards of millions of Australians.

So it is not something that should be considered in a politically charged atmosphere or for some momentary political advantage. It ought to be the subject of serious public policy debate and serious analysis about the way forward. What we see today is a stunt by the Liberal opposition to try and make themselves politically popular by being able to say: ‘Oh well, we will just give $30 a week to pensioners, pass it through the parliament. It is all fixed, problem gone away.’ Senator Brown makes a fair point that he, Senator Fielding and others have been campaigning and have engaged in this area for a while now, and we had a very good Senate report into the issues. That contribution to the debate has been important. But stunts like this one today do not advance the cause. The Liberal opposition know it is not going to advance the cause, they know it is not going to achieve anything, they know it is a political stunt, but still they persist. They said to us it was urgent not this last weekend but the weekend before. Here we are, 10 days on before they do anything about it.

I am the Minister representing the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs in this chamber and I got asked two questions about it last week. Of all the opposition questions, I got asked two, and they did not introduce the bill as they had promised. They spent their week fighting internally about who would be leader and who would have the spoils of opposition. So they are not serious about it. They are trying to take pensioners for a ride and I think pensioners will see through this, because what pensioners fundamentally understand is that the Liberal-National Party were the government for 11½ years. They had 11½ years to change the basis upon which the pension is calculated and in each of the budgets they brought down they decided not to.

We know from former Treasurer Costello’s memoirs that it went to their last budget. Mal Brough took a proposition to increase the rate of the pension to their last cabinet meeting. Senator Coonan and Senator Minchin were in the room when they voted not to do anything about it. So the people who come into this chamber now and say this is their highest priority, that it is a national disgrace and that we are heartless in not responding, are the people who sat in the cabinet room less than 18 months ago and, on the 11th or 12th occasion, took the decision to do nothing about this. The crisis is one they have only discovered in their nine months in opposition. Quite frankly, no-one takes them seriously. I think people acknowledge that this is the lowest of political acts, that they now express concern after 11½ years of doing nothing. So I do not take the opposition seriously on these issues. Their mock outrage does them no credit at all.

The Rudd Labor government accept that there is a problem. We accept that pensioners are doing it tough. We acknowledge that, despite the indexation of the pension, with rising inflation and rising costs more generally Australia’s pensioners are doing it very tough indeed. Those without other income support at all, particularly those who rent privately, do it tough because they are also confronted by rents. People who own their own homes are marginally better off, but those who live solely on the pension and who are in private accommodation are particularly in need. All pensioners are doing it tough and this storm has occurred because government ministers have been honest. When asked, senior government ministers—the Treasurer, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and I—have made it very clear that we accept there is a problem. We accept that it is an issue that was not addressed in the 11½ years of the previous government.

On coming to government, we acknowledged the problem and we accepted our responsibility to do something about it. In the few months while we framed our first budget, we took a decision to make a down payment on the needs of pensioners—not just age pensioners, I might say, but veterans, people on the disability pension, carers and others. We said we recognised their needs, so in the budget we committed in excess of $5 billion over the budget period to increase the income paid to pensioners. We did not fiddle with the base rate because we knew that was a terribly complex piece of public policy that would need to be dealt with properly. We announced that we would pay a $500 bonus to each of those persons on the pension and, in addition, we would increase the utilities allowance by $400 a year.

The Liberal Party advisers may snigger, but we actually made a serious attempt to provide some relief. The $400 increase in the utilities allowance and the $500 bonus adds up to $900 a year, approximately $17 a week if you want to average it out over the period. That was a substantial contribution to try to alleviate in our first budget some of the serious financial pressures impacting on pensioners. Of course, in accordance with the long-accepted CPI indexation of pensions, from the other day—20 September, I think—there was an adjustment in the single pension of, I think, $15.30 a fortnight. Again, it is not a huge amount but a measure which increases the base rate of the pension by $15.30 a fortnight, in addition to the $900 a year, or $17 a week, this government put down in its first budget.

In putting down our first budget we acknowledged that there was a fundamental problem. We acknowledged that, by themselves, these one-off payments were not addressing the underlying problem of the adequacy of the pension and its capacity to keep people in a standard of living which is acceptable in a successful economy. We undertook to include in the taxation review a specific look at the questions of the social security payments—but not just, as in this bill, by trying to pick one out and say, ‘We’ll make a play to the pensioners,’ or ‘We’ll make a play to the veterans.’ In our first budget, we spread the utilities allowance to those that had not been getting it under the previous government. We increased it and spread its availability to carers and to people with a disability. So we expanded the payment to a new group of people as well as adding $400 to the payment. But, as I say, in addition to those measures we have undertaken a fundamental review of the rate of the pension and its role in supporting millions of Australians. That review will report to the government by February, and that will underpin policy that this government will take forward in the next year and obviously also in the budget context.

This is an important public policy area. It is not an area where there should be stunts. The age pension is worth $25 billion a year. It is the single largest piece of Australian government expenditure. The disability support pension is worth more than $9½ billion a year. The carer payments are worth about $2 billion. This is major public policy and major government expenditure that are important to the whole fabric of our society. This is not something you deal with with a stunt—having a private member’s bill done on the run and amending it the day before it comes in. That does not allow any government to responsibly respond.

There are 3½ million Australians on some form of pension. Whatever we do we have to get right. It has to be considered, balanced and fair—and you do not do that with short-term stunts, by trying to ram a private member’s bill through the parliament in a matter of days. You are pretending to do something real, knowing that it will not pass the House of Representatives and knowing that the government has the matters in hand and is trying to respond.

It does the opposition no credit to carry on in this way. After 11½ years of doing nothing, they have huge gall in coming into this chamber and saying: ‘We’ve had a conversion on the road to Damascus; we have suddenly discovered there is a problem and we have suddenly discovered our social conscience. We now think the new government—the government that defeated us at the last election—ought to immediately do a range of things that we were unable to do in 11½ years. We did not rate this as a priority for 11½ years, but now it is a priority.’

I know that this proposition is disarmingly attractive. It rolls off the tongue very easily—$30 a week for pensioners. The Greens were at $60 or $70 the last I heard. Maybe Senator Fielding will up them and make it $100. It is easy to say and it is very easy for minors and Independents to argue. They do not have to balance the budget. They do not have to deal with the complex public policy issues involved. They do not have to make sure that the Australian economy is steady with all that is going on around us in international financial markets. It is a really easy headline. It is really easy to get a clap at a pensioner meeting, but that is no substitute for the serious work of this parliament and the serious work of government in public policy.

We do acknowledge the problem. I will argue strenuously that we made a serious down payment in the budget to try to provide immediate help to pensioners. That serious financial commitment has not been widely understood. That was a failure by us in terms of the politics and selling that to the people, making them aware of what we had done in the budget. But we are taking the issue very seriously. We are trying to deal with the enormous public policy issues at stake.

People ought to understand that the pension is at the heart of Australia’s social security system. Moving the pension has hundreds of knock-on effects in areas quite new to me—and I had the portfolio for a while when in opposition. There are myriad connections everywhere in the social security system and they are very complex. It not only affects the pensions; it affects who comes into the pension net and it affects the capacity of a person on a pension to earn other income. Many pensioners who currently rely on that other income will find themselves taxed at a higher rate if this measure is passed. People’s family tax payments will be affected—

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, they won’t. It doesn’t affect the base rate.

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

Senator Coonan interjects. She was busily this morning cobbling together an amendment to throw veterans in. Where are the disability pensioners in your bill? Where are the carers in your bill? Forgotten and ignored. People who are just as deserving have been totally ignored.

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They’re not in yours.

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

Because, quite frankly, it is a stunt. You know it is a stunt. Senator Coonan, you were at the cabinet meeting when Mal Brough put it up, you knocked it over. So do not come in here and lecture me on compassion. You had 11 years to defend this and you did nothing for 11 years.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I remind senators to be orderly and to address their remarks through the chair.

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

It is a complex area of policy. That is why we have put in place this fundamental examination of the issues at stake. That is why we have sought to include the concerns of carers and those on disability pensions and those on veteran pensions—unlike the opposition. We realise that there are a lot of people living on these pensions whose livelihood and standard of living depend on these payments.

We realise that there are a range of complexities that impact on other payments and other entitlements throughout the social security system. It is not simple, but that is not a reason not to do something. Unlike the former government, we actually took on the responsibility of trying to make a difference in this area but we will do that in a proper, measured and considered way. We made a down payment in the last budget—with immediate relief of $900 a year for most pensioners—and we seek to take forward that work in a more fundamental way as the review reports and as we prepare for next year’s budget. Sure, we did not fix all of those problems in the three or four months we had prior to the last budget. We acknowledge that. But the complexity of it means that one is not capable of doing it without serious public policy work.

The opposition come into this chamber now and say to us that they can cut 5c off the price of petrol, they can lower personal income tax rates, they can increase the pension by $30 a week, they can protect luxury car owners from having to pay tax and they refuse to close a tax loophole that allows Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron and BP to exploit our mineral resources without paying appropriate taxation. In doing all that, they will demolish Australia’s surplus, Australia’s savings. This is what passes for economic policy inside the Liberal Party these days.

Australians are not mugs, so do not treat them as mugs. Australians know that, in government, the coalition did not cut the price of petrol. They know that the coalition did not increase the rates of pensions. They know that the coalition are snake-oil salesmen. Despite arguing all the time they were in government that they needed big surpluses, now they are in opposition the coalition are saying: ‘We do not need a surplus. Despite the terrible economic conditions that are occurring internationally we do not need any protection against that. We do not need a surplus. We do not need to have luxury car owners pay tax. We do not need to have big oil companies pay tax and, by the way, we can cut 5c off your price of petrol and we can increase pensions.’ Suddenly in opposition they can be all things to all people—all care and no responsibility.

The realities of government are quite different. You have to act responsibly. You have to balance all the other pressures in the economy. You have to try and make good public policy. This government is committed to making good public policy. It is committed to addressing the challenges the economy is confronting, and it is also committed to giving a better deal to Australia’s pensioners, veterans, carers and to those on the disability pension. All of them deserve our consideration. All of them deserve greater support. This government has acknowledged that.

We get criticised now for acknowledging it, but we are honest. We actually believe that there is a problem that that needs to be addressed. We made a serious down payment in our first budget and we have undertaken to do the serious public policy work that will need to underpin any major reform in this area.

Serious, hard public policy work will involve very difficult choices for the government, and eventually very difficult choices for this parliament, but it is not as simple as some would have you believe. Australia’s pensioners are not mugs. They know that the Liberal and National parties did nothing for 11½ years and they know when the coalition come in here now and promise pensioners the world that they are speaking with forked tongues. Pensioners know that you are holding out false hope. They know that you did not do anything for them in government and that when you now say that you can fix all the woes of the world you are misleading them. This is a serious matter and this government treats it seriously but we will respond in a serious, balanced and mature way, not by supporting political stunts.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia’s 3.4 million pensioners are overlooked and are really struggling to make ends meet. So many pensioners need extra help to pay for skyrocketing grocery and petrol bills just to get by. According to the St Vincent de Paul Society, age pensioners can spend 30 per cent more on food as a proportion of their income than average households, and they are hardest hit by those soaring grocery prices. But all people receiving the pension deserve an increase, not just those receiving the single pension. Pensioners have been overlooked for far too long. That is why Family First has been speaking out on this important issue for some time. That is why Family First teamed up with Shirley, the pensioner from Glenroy in Melbourne, to get a fair go for all pensioners. Shirley Grant has been the unsung hero of pensioners during this campaign. Family First and Shirley organised a protest rally that really put the plight of pensioners on the map—a protest, outside Flinders Street station in Melbourne in May, where hundreds of pensioners turned up to highlight the plight of pensioners. Thirty per cent of pensioners have less than $1,000 in the bank. It does not take much to imagine a situation where a big bill comes in, or some repairs are needed to the washing machine or to the fridge, and those savings are wiped out. The stress levels they face are enormous. Many pensioners are in danger of falling over the financial cliff. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Treasurer have all admitted they could not survive on the pension, but they have asked pensioners to wait until February next year for a pension review to report, until May for the budget decision, and then until July for relief from the soaring cost of living. July next year! That is way too long. Australia’s 1.9 million people on the age pension are really struggling and need help.

It is also important to have an increase in the pension for those other pensioners. The coalition’s proposal covers more than 900,000 pensioners but gives nothing to the other more than 2.4 million pensioners who are also doing it tough. The coalition’s plan gives the nearly one million pensioners that are on the single age pension, single service pension and the widow B pension a $30 per week increase, but gives nothing to the other 2.4 million pensioners such as carers, couples on the age pension and those on the disability pension. It is good that the coalition realises now, a year after it lost government, that pensioners need urgent help, but it is odd that this move is limited to so few pensioners. There are 714,00 people receiving the disability support pension. The disability support pension goes to Australians who cannot work because they are permanently blind or who have a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment. People who have a disability and who cannot support themselves financially obviously need help. They face the same financial struggles as other pensioners but perhaps without some of the advantages of many able-bodied people. There are almost 400,000 parents receiving parenting payment single. They have a tough job bringing up their children without the support of a spouse or a partner. One study found that single parents who do not have a job spend more than 50 per cent of their income on necessities like food, housing and electricity. This can be compared to other families who spend one-third of their income on those items. Obviously the cost of living pressures have had a big impact on them as well. Carers are a key group that are doing it tough. There are 116,000 people receiving carers’ payment. Too often we forget that caring is a constant and that carers do not get a day off. It is a 24/7, 365 days a year job.

Most of us have a break on the weekend, but not carers looking after a loved one who is frail aged or sick or who has a disability. They do vital work and they need our support. Family First believes that this bill should include the disability support pension, parenting payment single, carer payment, wife pension and income support supplement for singles and couples. I move the second reading amendment on behalf of Family First:

At the end of the motion, add:

but the Senate is of the opinion that the increase in the pension rate should extend to recipients of the:

(a)

disability support pension;

(b)

parenting payment;

(c)

carer payment;

(d)

wife pension;

(e)

service pension; and

(f)

income support supplement.

All these other pensioners need help; they are facing a very difficult situation with soaring petrol and grocery prices. They are struggling to make ends meet. We have had people in tears call my office saying that they simply cannot afford to get enough to eat. We have heard of people staying in bed all day because they cannot afford to pay for heating. They are already isolated enough. These are Australians that we said we would look after; we are failing miserably and we need to do a heck of a lot more. Family First wants to make sure that all pensioners get a fair go.

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

I indicate that I will support the Urgent Relief for Single Age Pensioners Bill 2008. Currently, government funded pensions and allowances are the main source of income for most people aged 65 years and over. In recent weeks, the media has repeatedly reported numerous stories about how difficult it is for pensioners to live on the level of the existing pension. Consequently, pensioners have to rely on private income to get by. But over 13 per cent of Australians over 65 have no private income to supplement their pension payment.

More than half of all pensioners live on less than $20 per week of private income and most do not have substantial savings or other assets. I note the Australian newspaper on 9 August this year reported that voters saw the aged as one of the top groups of Australians deserving more support from the government. More specifically, the Canberra Times on 16 September reported figures showing that over 78 per cent of Australians believe that pensioners should get an immediate rise in their pension.

The public concern about this situation and the urgent circumstances facing many recipients who are struggling to cope with escalating costs of living were all reasons for my support of this bill taking precedence. This bill seeks to amend the Social Security Act and the Veterans’ Entitlements Act to increase the single age pension, single age service pension and widow B pension by $30 per week with effect from 20 September 2008. The explanatory memorandum to this bill states that it will be a first step by the coalition to deliver a comprehensive policy in relation to pensions, income support, veterans’ support and carers over time. I acknowledge the criticism of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Evans, about the coalition’s previous position, but the coalition has now nailed their colours to the mast and they cannot retreat from their current position.

Given the urgency of the situation, I wish to state my support for this bill. While this bill is urgent for all Australians, in my home state of South Australia with a relatively older population this bill is of even more vital importance. 15.2 per cent of South Australia’s population is aged over 65 compared to 13.2 per cent for Australia as a whole. The differential is even greater when you look at the rest of the country.

It is not just, as some claim, that elderly Australians have paid their taxes for many years and now deserve our support. It is also that the experience and contribution of more mature Australians are resources worthy of investment. If we invest in our more mature Australians, we will have people ready and able to contribute to community services put under stress by rising rates of full-time employment. We will have people who can contribute time and wisdom to our communities, neighbourhood networks and future generations.

Older Australians should not have to scrape to get by. They should not be the subject of scorn for their necessary frugality. They should not have their health and vitality sapped by inadequate pension support. We need to look at a range of ways to make life easier for those on the aged pension, not just for their sake, but for all of our sakes. That is why I support this bill.

However, if I have a major concern with this bill, it is that it does not go far enough. I note the concerns of Senator Brown and Senator Siewert’s foreshadowed amendments as well as Senator Fielding’s second reading amendment. I think it is important that, for instance, that the 450,000 Australians who are on a single disability pension need to be considered as well. The price of food, groceries, transport and other bills does not discriminate according to the amount of your pension or the label on your concession card. Neither should we.

My view is that we should deal with this bill. My preference would have been for it to have been dealt with once we have had a chance to consider the amendments, but I understand the will of the Senate in relation to this. I note the government’s position but I think it is also important that we act now to give some immediate relief to the pensioners of Australia. Some would say that the Senate is the people’s house because today we are reflecting on widespread concerns in the community and giving support to those Australians who are struggling with their current inadequate pensions. I support this bill. I look forward to further consideration of this bill. Again, we must send a signal to the community that we need to act with urgency to assist the pensioners of Australia.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again we have the coalition introducing a bill to do something about something for which they have suddenly found their conscience, after an injustice that has been happening in Australia for quite a significant period of time. For the whole time that they were in government, certainly for the last few years, it has not been a secret that the pensioners of Australia have been doing it tough. That is why we had the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs inquiry into the cost of living for older Australians which produced a report titled A decent quality of life. The inquiry was initiated during the now opposition’s watch in government because it was recognised that there were increasing costs of living pressures on those living on a pension, in particular older Australians. I will get to some of the issues facing some of our other pensioners in Australia shortly. One of the conclusions of the committee inquiry into the impact of the cost of living was:

It is clear to the committee that many and possibly even a large majority of older people experience a good quality of life in retirement. However, the inquiry highlighted that for a number of older people cost pressures are increasingly curtailing their participation in social and community activities. In turn, this is leading to a diminished quality of living. In particular, some sections of the pensioner population are on tight budgets with no capacity to absorb cost of living rises that outstrip pension entitlements. Further, the committee remains concerned about the possible under-reporting of financial stress by older people. Many in this demographic have a higher propensity to experience difficult financial circumstances without complaint.

They have been doing that for years and years and years, but now they have reached the point where they cannot bear the cost of living increases anymore and they have actually started to be outspoken about it. We have finally seen the pressure valve go off.

Debate interrupted.