Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Senator Evans) to questions without notice asked by Senators Ferguson and Bushby today relating to the Prime Minister.

It is with great despair, or increasing levels of despair, that once again I rise to talk about the government’s complete lack of empathy with or understanding of the deprivation and hardship that many of our age pensioners and those who are on fixed incomes and reliant on government support are receiving. It is becoming a tired record when the coalition stands up here saying that we owe pensioners a better deal. We know that they are struggling with the cost of living. We know that they are struggling to feed themselves, to remain in adequate accommodation, with transport and just existing. Every time we raise this, every time we put a question to Senator Evans or someone else in the government, what do we get? They pass the buck.

It is a shame for pensioners, because, whilst the coalition’s priorities are about ensuring that people stand to gain from the bloated $22 billion surplus inherited by this government that they are not prepared to release to ease the cost-of-living pressures upon those who are amongst the most vulnerable in our society, what do we get from the Labor Party? Let me tell you, Mr Deputy President. Whilst pensioners are concerned with the price of petrol, the government says they cannot do anything anymore and they refuse to countenance or consider a reduction in the petrol tax or fuel excise. When pensioners are saying that the price of power means they cannot put on their heaters for more than a couple of hours a day, what do we get from the government? They say, ‘We’re going to put prices up through some of these cockamamie schemes that are going to increase prices for people who are really struggling in our society.’ When pensioners are saying they cannot afford to provide the sustenance that they require, what do we get from the Labor Party? We get complaints about the size of the stroganoff portions in the cafeteria. Where are their priorities? It is embarrassing. It is humiliating.

When we talk about and remind them of the unlivable pension, a fact that is acknowledged by the Labor Party—they know that people on pensions are struggling—what do we get? We have the unlimited travel of the Prime Minister. That is all it is. He does not care about pensioners. What he cares about is the 24-hour media spin cycle. He is talking about a global financial crisis while ignoring the financial crisis that our pensioners are finding themselves in today. He is talking about stopping short-selling on the share market, but he will not talk about putting more food on the tables of pensioners. What more important thing is there, quite frankly, than helping someone to survive? According to this government, there is a whole lot more that is important. The price of stroganoff is more important down in the lower house than making sure a pensioner can get more than a loaf of bread and a jar of jam to feed themselves for a week.

Whilst the Prime Minister is in denial about these things and jets off into the sunset to talk in New York with bigwigs—including Missy Higgins I understand—Ms Gillard and Mr Swan have acknowledged that the pension is not enough. We know Mr Rudd talks the good talk in the Labor Party because he promised pensioners:

… there is no way on God’s earth that I intend to leave them in the lurch.

Well, he has left them in the lurch. The government are lurching from one crisis to another and all the time they are focused on the 24-hour media spin cycle because that is what is truly important to them. The perception is out there: they really do not care about the impact on people on the ground. They pay homage to them and they pay lip-service to them. At the very first community cabinet they were asked, ‘Who can live on the single age pension?’ What was the response? There was no-one who could live on it. What have they done since? Nothing.

The Labor Party are going to say that they have enacted the coalition’s promises from before the election for utility services and things of that nature. They have done that—we accept that—but pensioners still cannot afford to live. When will the Labor Party get that through their thick skulls? Pensioners cannot afford to live and the government are doing nothing about it. That is why the coalition—together with some of the minor parties we hope—believe that pensioners are owed a better deal. We are striving to give them a better deal. Whilst the government are turning their back on pensioners and on the very real needs of some who have made the greatest contribution to our society over a long period of time, we are presenting a real alternative.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As members would be aware, I am a new senator and this is the first occasion upon which I have spoken in a debate to take note of answers given during question time. One of the many joys of being in this place has been following the other side’s journey of exploration as they have rediscovered the socialist heart beating inside the Liberal Party. It has been Woodstock on the other side for quite a few days now. It is Puff, the Magic Dragon and Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds over there. That party have in recent times rediscovered the power of the word ‘sorry’. They have rediscovered the republic. They have pronounced that this country does not need a surplus in its Commonwealth government. They have pronounced that they will abandon Work Choices. And they have discovered pensioners. We are now seeing the absurd situation where, after 12 years of doing nothing, the other side are trying to develop a heart with respect to pensioners.

The other side have discovered a new place on the left-right political spectrum and it is the confused place. Even the National Party are seeking to find the eject button. The new Leader of the Nationals in this place has declared that he wants to be a more independent voice, and no doubt that means a voice that seeks to no longer be heard alongside the confused voice of the Liberal Party. Under Mr Turnbull’s new leadership of the Liberal Party we see the same confused adherence to this notion of trying to find the bleeding socialist heart of the Liberal Party.

They complain about the fact that the Prime Minister of Australia is going overseas. What a nonsense this is. The Prime Minister has rushed straight to the front line. He has gone exactly where this country needs him. In support of that proposition, I bear to weight no more powerful authority than Malcolm Turnbull himself, who said recently:

There is very great concern about the situation here in America and that’s really the reason I’m here. The security, the mortgages, the homes, the jobs of Australians depend in large measure on the international developments coming out of the United States of this credit crisis, so it was important for me as Shadow Treasurer to come here ...

I am sure in reading that I did not give proper weight to the pomposity with which it was originally said, but the intent is clear. Until recently, the other side understood that visiting the United States of America was critical in dealing with some of the challenges facing this country, not the least of which is the financial crisis.

What will Mr Rudd be doing when he is in the United States of America? There could not be a greater opportunity for our head of government to meet with the heads of state of other critical nations. In fact, 13 of the 15 heads of state of the biggest economies of the world will be in attendance at the United Nations General Assembly. Of course, 222 government heads of state are attending the assembly. But, of course, for the other side it is all a magical mystery tour.

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

Try talking about pensioners.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You might have tried talking about pensioners for the last 12 years, Senator Barnett, but you did not find your voice. The question has to be: what has changed? How is it that pensioners were entitled to nothing nine months ago and now suddenly the other side have decided that pensioners are deserving of a change?

This government has compassion and economic responsibility at its heart, both attributes completely absent from the other side both when they were in office and now that they are out of office. The Liberals are completely obsessed with their own internal politics, obsessed with the new purge of the Liberal Party by this ‘time of the moderates’. They are still adhering to this absurd idea that the Prime Minister should not be going overseas.

Pensions are presently subject to a holistic review. In this review this government is going to be looking at pensioners’ circumstances in a proper and considered manner and will be considering their entitlements in the context of both what is required and what is affordable. This review is not an off-the-cuff hip shot. It is not simply a political stunt. It is not something that ignores 2.2 million beneficiaries, as the other side’s stunt bill does. The other side represent a false dawn. (Time expired)

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

It is worth reminding those opposite that in debating the motion moved by Senator Bernardi we are talking about the plight of pensioners in this country. I wonder what the Australian pensioners listening to this broadcast today—and there would be quite a few of them, as we know—are thinking, with the sort of conversation that has gone on today in this place, about the priorities the parliament has with respect to their needs and the crisis they are facing with the cost of living.

Senator Feeney may be interested in hammering the issue of the Prime Minister’s overseas travel but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the fact that pensioners in Australia today are doing it tough. I would like to refer to the language used not by this side but by the now minister, Minister Macklin, when she introduced, in the second half of last year, the motion for an inquiry into the cost-of-living pressures facing older Australians. At that time she said that Australian pensioners were doing it tough and that they wanted action. They wanted something done about this issue. The inquiry was held. Members of this place were part of that inquiry and they found that there was a problem. They found that pensioners needed some reconsideration of the base level of payment of pensions in this country. We particularly, in that inquiry, drew attention to the problem of single pensioners vis-a-vis the amounts being paid to couple pensioners.

We are proposing today to do something about that, to make something change and to deal with that issue. We have put on the table a comprehensive and immediate response to that problem because we accept, as we did last year when this inquiry was moved and we adopted it immediately, that we need to act on this question. Australian pensioners are doing it tough. The question is worth asking, ‘What has changed for those pensioners in the last 12 months?’ What has changed is that the government announced in its budget earlier this year that they were going to make certain payments or allowances available to pensioners—but, of course, that was simply to put on a different footing payments that had been made by the previous government. The question is perhaps more pertinently phrased, ‘What are they not doing?’ What is this government not doing about pensions and their adequacy in this country? What they are not doing is addressing the question of the rising costs of groceries. Nobody in this country who looks at the GROCERYchoice website would attain any beneficial advantage from looking at that site, as to what they should do to bring down the cost of purchasing groceries each week.

The government are doing nothing about petrol. Even if the government’s deeply flawed Fuelwatch scheme were to be actually implemented by this place, we know that it would cut out those cheap Tuesdays. Who uses those cheap Tuesdays to get low-cost petrol in this country? Pensioners do. That is going out the window if your Fuelwatch scheme happens to get up and, of course, that is a very serious blow to those people who rely on those sorts of measures to get cheaper petrol. They are pushing inflation up through a range of measures in this budget and this is going to increase the cost of living for people across the board. They are also forcing hundreds of thousands of Australians—again, it is very likely primarily pensioners in that group—out of private health insurance by pushing up the cost of private health insurance premiums. Up to one million Australians could be leaving private health insurance as a result of the measures this government is taking. Pensioners will, no doubt, be foremost among that group.

I want to address this myth—this myth the Labor Party perpetuates—about the former government having done nothing to deal with the private pensioners. Today the single age pension stands at $273.40 per week. If it had not been for the decision that the coalition made in 1997 to adjust pensions by reference to MTAWE—not just to the CPI—that rate would be only slightly above $200 per week. In other words, $72.80 of the $273 or so that pensioners receive today is attributable to our decision to adjust pensions by reference to MTAWE. That is what we did. What have you done, and what will you do? I suggest you look at the proposal put on the table by the coalition and you back it—because that is a real measure to make sure that pensioners in this country are able to take advantage of a real change to benefit their standard of living, and it is a real measure of action in this area.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not know that I have heard so much interesting conversation for such a long time. It is just astounding to me that the other side have, all of a sudden, developed this social conscience. They had 12½ years to develop a social conscience and they could not do it. They could have, but they would not. They actually voted it down. But now they have become the saviours of the pensioners. I find that quite sickening and I am sure that the pensioners are not conned at all either, because they know that for 12½ years the other side did very, very little to help them.

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

They supported our bill.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not so according to some things I have read, Senator Barnett. Over the coming months the Rudd government is fixing the whole system, root and branch, and fixing it for everyone. Today, all of a sudden, we saw just about everyone being included in the arguments. Last week it was such an important issue that there were only two questions in the whole of question time for the week. Did you all travel down the road to Damascus over the weekend? I do not quite know what has gone on on that side. Something heart-warming has happened over there—and I am pleased to see that it has finally happened. But it is 12½ years too late.

We are undertaking to fix the problems with the age pension and the payments for carers and for people with disabilities. We know that they are finding it hard to make ends meet and we are looking at the best way of providing some security for the long term. We are not offering them one-stop fixes that say, ‘Here we are coming up to an election; we will offer you an extra $500 and we think that you are all so silly that you will vote for us.’ Thankfully they were not so silly—I do not think they are silly at all—and thankfully they did not actually vote for you when it came to choosing who would win government.

Over the last 10 to 15 years—that is, under the Howard government—pensioners saw growth in their pensions of about two per cent, in real terms, above inflation. So, in regard to what Senator Humphries was saying, this growth was actually below the average household disposable income growth. The pension review is looking at the frequency of payments, including the effectiveness of lump sum or bonus payments versus ongoing support. The previous government’s practice of paying one-off bonuses to carers and seniors when the budget allowed created uncertainty. Pensioners would hang out to see if they were actually going to get a bonus or not. We need some certainty and security for these Australians. They need to be able to know whether the money is going to be there and they need to be able to access it.

I am just amazed at the backflip the coalition have done. They could not come up with $30 a week last year, but today they want to offer the world and it is a complete joke. They are not really determined to fix their mistakes; they have left it to us to fix them and then they cry wolf over the fact that it might take us some time to do so because we choose to do it properly not just to have a quick-fix approach. The Liberals will not support the government’s legislation on luxury car tax or the Medicare levy but all of a sudden they are happy to have us spend the money willy-nilly from the budget.

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You’ve got a $22 billion surplus.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are responsible over here. We acknowledge that there is a problem and people are doing it hard, but we also acknowledge that any fix needs to be done in a proper manner, making sure that there is security for these people. The Liberals’ economic irresponsibility beggars belief as far as I am concerned. This is a complex issue and I do not think the opposition are serious at all. I think you are just grandstanding for political media runs and that is just despicable. As I said, you only had two questions in regard to this issue in the whole of question time last week—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Bilyk, I am loath to interrupt but you must address your remarks through the chair.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through you, Mr Deputy President, the opposition only had two questions in the whole of question time last week on this issue. If they were serious about this issue, they would have had a lot more questions. There was a lot of posturing going on last week. I could just about time every 3½ minutes when Senator Abetz would jump up on a point of order—it was a bit Pavlovian. The opposition have to be more serious about what they put their minds to. How do you think people feel? People are not silly, they do not think that just because—(Time expired)

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

I stand today to speak in support of the motion moved by Senator Bernardi to take note of answers from government ministers with respect to pensioners. Pensioners are doing it hard. The Rudd Labor government do not care about pensioners. That has been demonstrated not only today but in recent days through the government’s inaction in their lack of support for our opposition legislation to increase the base rate for the single age pension by $30 a week.

It is very disappointing indeed when they know full well that they can support this legislation, this initiative, and make a difference in the lives of pensioners across Australia. They know that since they were elected there has been upward pressure on prices with respect to groceries. They know there have been increases in petrol prices. It is very hard. I can quote Senator Bilyk when she said, ‘I know it is hard for pensioners to make ends meet.’ Too right, I am glad she knows that. I know that senators in this chamber are aware of that.

I had an incident only last week where a local pensioner in my home town of Launceston was expressing extreme concern about her ability to pay the bills: the heating bill and the power bill, and to pay for food. She was referring to one of her friends who had an extra cost of upgrading the bathroom for a new shower screen. These are real-life examples where pensioners need help. For some people in the government $30 a week may not sound like a lot, but it means a lot right now and pensioners need it now. The government have said, ‘Yes, let’s have a review.’ For goodness sake, they have 165-odd reviews going on at the moment. My understanding is that the review they are talking about will not report until early next year and then, of course, they are going to have to consider the report that is delivered and we probably will not see anything announced until the May budget next year. We are talking about September 2008; we are talking about now.

The fact is this government are big on smoke screens, big on symbolism and very, very short on action—doing and delivering. Actions speak louder than words; we all know that and the government could get behind this coalition bill to make a difference in the lives of pensioners. We have seen the dilatory approach to the management of our economy by the Rudd Labor government. Sadly, as a result of the budget with an increase in spending, we have seen the increase in taxes and of course we have had the increase in grocery prices, the increase in petrol prices and upward pressures all round.

That is particularly so in rural and regional parts of Australia, but in Tasmania for example, in the northern parts, petrol prices are up to 15c per litre higher than they are in the southern part of the state and indeed they are significantly higher than Melbourne and Sydney. It is so much harder for pensioners in Tasmania than those in other parts of Australia. So $30 a week is important, we can deliver and it would be a very good result.

We are all concerned for pensioners but we can deliver and make a difference in their lives. We all know that a fair whack of them would be eating blackberry jam—why is that? The reason is that it is the poor man’s strawberry jam. They would be eating blackberry jam because they do not have the money to pay for a decent amount of food and groceries each week. It is hard going for them. Let us make it very clear that this government should turn around—if you call it a backflip, we will welcome it. They have been saying: ‘No, no, no. Yes, pensioners are hurting, they need help.’ Then they say, ‘Let’s have a review that will report early next year’—that is, the Henry review. Mr Rudd has dudded the pensioners and he should do a backflip and support this immediate increase for pensioners. We have done the hard yards in government. We have delivered a strong economy. The Rudd Labor government have a $22 billion surplus. They can use some of that and they can use it wisely in supporting this legislation put forward by the coalition.

Question agreed to.