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

Senator Siewert has, on behalf of the Greens, important amendments to extend the reach of this bill to include both disability pensioners and carers. We will speak to those as they come along.

I want to remark again on the commitment of the opposition to this process today, with one speaker out of the 37 being committed to a speech in the second reading debate. Reflect upon that as against the situation last Thursday where there were 37 senators listed to speak in opposition to the luxury car tax legislation. So on the one hand when the luxury car tax is being debated all 37 members of the opposition are up to fight against this tax being raised on people who can afford the most expensive cars, which are largely imported into the country, but when it comes to single pensioners getting a $30-a-week increase, they can provide only one speaker.

I note that Senator Xenophon said, ‘Well, they have tied their support to the mast for this legislation,’ and indeed it is their legislation now. But it is hollow legislation from hollow people when you see only one speaker—not even another minister and not even those new shadow ministers who are responsible for portfolios like disabilities and carers has been in the chamber for the duration of this debate today. It is not just careless; one has to be concerned that this opposition, which did nothing to improve the lot of pensioners over 12 budgets, is now taking pensioners for granted. That is a greater insult still.

The legislation that we have here will hopefully pass this place and will, as we know, be stalled in the House of Representatives. It is unlikely, I think, looking at the numbers, to get up for debate in the other place. But we do want to put legitimate pressure onto the government. When the government sees an opposition that does not back up legislation but is simply moving it so that it can say in the public arena, ‘We have moved it for pensioners,’ the government gets the wrong signal—that is, that this does not count because it will blow over.

Let me state that the Greens are extremely serious about the need to get pensioners out of the pitiful situation monetarily that serial governments have left them in. And we will continue to put pressure on this government. But it is an enormous pity that the opposition did not come in here fighting today. It did not come in here with serried ranks in argument for this legislation. Instead of that it left it to a couple of minutes for an introductory assessment of the legislation by the minister and then a sum-up at the end. Therein is the strategy failing to put the pressure on government that is required if we are going to see pensioners get the minimum $30 increase in a lead-up to bigger increases in the next budget, which they will require if they are going to be helped just a wee bit.

In today’s Advocate newspaper, which is a newspaper from Burnie in Tasmania, I read about a pensioner at Zeehan, on the west coast, where they have done away with the local service station—it is a mining boom town—and you have to use a card to get petrol because there is no person there. The service has gone but the station remains. To get a card you have to have $300 for the month to get petrol. This pensioner is saying, ‘I do not have $300, therefore I cannot get a card, therefore I cannot get petrol and therefore I cannot move.’ Her only option, after 25 years in the town, is to leave the town.

That is a failure of private enterprise, if you ask me, on the one hand to simply remove service from the town and say, ‘We’ll provide service to the mining industry,’ which has been doing extraordinarily well, in the main, but, on the other hand, to forget the long-term citizens of the place. It is totally unfair and it is unjust that that pensioner should have to move from her home town to find some place somewhere else simply because she cannot afford a petrol card. But that is the lack of choice that is left to our elderly citizens, who, as Senator Milne was just outlining, have put so much of their lives into making sure that we are all doing very well, thank you very much.

That said, it is important to deal sensibly with these amendments and to expect that the government will take them seriously. Having seen the failure of the opposition’s strategy here today, I do ask the government to take this seriously. Let’s see the government have this debate in the House of Representatives—a debate that has been failed by the opposition here in the Senate today. Let’s make it a serious debate, let’s give it the gravitas that it genuinely deserves and let’s take it to the next stage and ensure that we get a commitment from government to give this rise of $30 to single pensioners that we set out at the beginning to achieve.

Senator Fielding has moved amendments to expand that increase across the board. That has been the position of the Greens all the way down the line. However, let me state very clearly here: we homed in on the $30 increase for single pensioners as an achievable goal on the road to getting not just a $30 increase but closer to a $100 increase for pensioners across the board by next year’s budget. It is easy to come in here, once that strategy has been put forward in this legislation, and continue to extend it. It is simply extending this measure to where the Greens began in the first place. We will support those amendments, but I put the challenge to Senator Fielding as I put it very clearly to the opposition—and except for talking about the surplus we got no response—how are you going to fund these pension increases? To fund this pension increase, the Greens took a courageous stand in the Senate to vote against the tax cuts for people on more than $75,000 a year. Not one other senator supported that move earlier in the year—not one other senator.

If there is going to be a serious call for the government to find and spend this money that question to Senator Fielding—who is planning to extend these measures, thereby catching up with Greens policy from the outset—has to be answered by Senator Fielding. That question to the opposition has to be answered by the opposition. Saying that the surplus is there is one thing; it is incumbent upon the opposition to indicate what should be taken from the surplus and from where it should be taken.

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

I will just speak generally. There are amendments by Family First. It was a little sad that no other voices voted yes on the amendment moved by Family First in the second reading debate.

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

Mr Temporary Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Just to prevent Senator Fielding from misrepresenting the Greens, we supported that amendment.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order, Senator Brown.

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

Senator Bob Brown interjecting—

The Temporary Chairman:

Excuse me. If you are going to address the chair, you will rise from your seat. There is no point of order.

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

Mr Temporary Chairman, on a point of order, I ask that the Greens support for that amendment be recorded.

The Temporary Chairman:

It is on the record now, Senator Brown.

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

I think that the whole idea of a pension increase that suggests that people on a couples pension are not worthy of an increase is mistaken. When you think about it, they are all doing it very tough. When you hear stories of people with skin problems and feeling weak and unsteady on their legs—people who obviously are not eating correctly—you wonder where our priorities lie. These are stories that have been in the papers. There are pensioners even having to borrow money to get medical help and then not knowing how to pay it back. We are seeing these stories of real-life pensioners every day. ‘There have been weeks when all I have eaten is rice,’ and, ‘Living off toast and baked beans is common for pensioners.’ These are some of the stories that we hear. These are real-life stories. ‘Mince and sausages are a luxury you have to put off and do without.’ These are the sorts of stories that you are hearing.

When you hear these stories, certainly the urgency is there for single pensioners, but it is also there for people on disability support pensions, carers payments and wives pensions and for couples on the age pension. It just seems sad that we cannot use this urgency today to cover all those people on pensions who are doing it really tough. That is why Family First will later be moving amendments to apply these changes across the board to those 3.4 million Australians on a pension. The coalition’s bill provides for an urgent increase of $30 a week for those on a single pension and some others, but that is only one million pensioners. There are 3.4 million pensioners in Australia, so 2.4 million will miss out. Family First thinks that is not fair and will continue to campaign for a fair go for all those people on pensions.

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

I move Greens amendment 1 on sheet 5595:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 24), after item 2, insert:

2A  Section 117

Omit “A person’s disability support pension rate”, substitute “Subject to section 117A, a person’s disability support pension rate”.

2B  After section 117

Insert:

117A Increased pension rate for disability support pensioners

        (1)    If:

             (a)    a person is qualified for the disability support pension under this Part; and

             (b)    the disability support pension is payable to that person under this Part; and

             (c)    the person is not a member of a couple;

then, for the purpose of making payments under Division 4 of Part 3 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1991, the person’s disability support pension rate is worked out by adding an amount equivalent to $30 per week to the person’s disability support pension rate calculated under section 117.

        (2)    To avoid doubt, the disability support pension rate determined under this section is not to be used for any other purpose, including for the calculation of any other benefit or fee under this Act or any other Act.

This amendment will enable the provisions in the bill to apply to a person who receives the single disability support pension. According to my figures, there are 464,230 of these people in Australia. As I articulated in my speech on the second reading, these pensioners are also doing it exceedingly tough; in fact, these pensioners are doing it even tougher than people on the single aged pension because they in fact did not receive the bonus. I sent a letter to the government asking why, and I am still seeking a response from the government as to why they did not receive a bonus. They did receive the utility payments, and I acknowledge that.

However, it was not until I asked a question in estimates that we managed to get people on the disability pension the utility payment for internet services through their mobile phone. Some disability pensioners are doing it so tough that they cannot even afford a computer, let alone in fact the internet. One of my constituents was using his mobile phone for his internet connection, and was told that he could not get the payments that disability pensioners are getting for utilities for an internet connection through a mobile phone. However, subsequent to me asking questions in estimates, that person is now getting the payment for accessing the internet through his mobile phone.

This to me highlighted the fact that people cannot even participate in what the broader community participates in every day. We accept being able to access the internet as an everyday occurrence, and yet people on the pension cannot afford that. People on a single aged pension cannot afford that; people on the disability pension cannot afford that; people on the carers allowance cannot afford that. We would not consider this a luxury. This is an everyday activity that we take for granted.

I was listening to something on the radio this morning about how important the internet had been for someone suffering from rheumatoid arthritis. It enabled that young lady to be able to communicate, understand her illness better and participate in the community. She was unable to participate physically or by meeting people. But she was able to connect through the internet. That is just one example.

These people cannot afford to participate in the community. They cannot make ends meet. Disability pensioners are doing it just as tough; in fact, as I articulated, they are doing it slightly tougher in fact than single age pensioners, because they do not have some of the additional support that single age pensioners have got—which is not saying a lot, when single age pensioners, as we know and as has been articulated extensively in this chamber today, cannot make ends meet.

We believe that, in fairness, disability support pensioners should also receive the $30 a week increase that single age pensioners would get if this bill were passed. We believe that people on the single disability pension should be able to access that $30 a week increase as well. That would make a significant difference for them in meeting their everyday expenses.

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

I indicate that the government will not be supporting the amendment. That is consistent with our position of not supporting the bill. We are not going to attempt to make the bill better or more logical than it is, because fundamentally it is flawed. As we have indicated previously, we do not think that it is constitutionally competent for the Senate to pass the bill. Our advice is that, it being an appropriation bill, it cannot be initiated in the Senate.

When you look at what is happening here, we have a Dutch auction going on. The Liberal Party indicated that they were going to introduce a bill relating to single pensioners. After severe criticism from carers, those with a disability and veterans, they threw in veterans. They upped their bid and said, ‘We’ll put the veterans in.’ Now we have the Greens coming in and putting quite rightly the criticism that carers and disability pensioners have been ignored and saying, ‘We’ll up the ante and throw in carers and disability support pensioners.’ Then we have Senator Fielding saying, ‘Double or nothing: I’ll make sure that those who are in partnered relationships also get the increase.’

It is really easy. We have just spent about $5 billion without thinking about it. All care, no responsibility. It is easy to up one another in the rhetorical sense by outbidding one another in the chamber. But is all a nonsense. Sure, we all acknowledge that pensioners are doing it tough. We all accept that we have to try and do more to support them and to keep their standard of living at a reasonable benchmark. That is why this government invested in the budget more than $5 billion in—

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

Tax cuts.

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

We certainly invested in average families, Senator Siewert. But for single age pensioners we also invested $900 over their base pension, the equivalent of $17 a week. We accept that they are still doing it tough and it did not solve all their problems, but we made a $900-per-annum, $17-a-week investment. We undertook to fundamentally review the basis of the pension and to examine what else we could do to assist those pensioners with their living expenses to ensure that they have a standard of living that we think is appropriate in a wealthy, civilised democracy like ours. We have committed to do that work; we are doing that work. We have also committed, as you are trying to do, to look after the circumstances of carers and people on the DSP. The question about people living in couples also has to be addressed.

You cannot do that by having a Dutch auction in the Senate in one day. Quite frankly, it is a nonsense. It does not do the Senate any credit. We all know that much more serious and fundamental work has to occur. The government has to lead that and bring serious legislation before the parliament. Let us debate the real issues then. But this is, quite frankly, a bit of a farce.

Progress reported.