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

I want to make a few remarks in conclusion. The amendment seeks to add a number of other category recipients to the bill. For the sake of clarity I should say that the number of pensioners who will be affected by the provisions of this bill is 928,834 Australians at a cost of $1.45 million. Senator Evans, in his comments, waxed lyrical about how difficult it was to make provision of the kind that we seek to make in this bill. But, clearly, it is a bit rich for Labor to complain about people who are being provided for in this bill when the Labor Party is not providing for anyone at all. It is very clear, and the chamber should be clear, that the Labor Party does not propose to provide for anyone at all. The coalition propose to provide for single age pensioners and, in my concluding remarks in the second reading debate, I set out the rationale for that. Having said that, it is very clear that we as the coalition agree that all pensioners deserve to have consideration of their position. We regard the additional payment of $30 per week as very much a first step to relieve single age pensioners, who are amongst the most vulnerable that we currently have of the people who are in receipt of pensions.

I also outlined the rationale in relation to not at this point including disability support pensioners. That is not to say that they are not worthy, but most of them are entitled to some additional payment. We think that, in all the circumstances, we need to have a comprehensive response, and we will continue to develop a comprehensive response to include all pensioners. We will keep this under urgent review, and we will continue to have regard to the ongoing needs of all categories of pension. I think there ought to be an acknowledgement in this chamber that all pensioners are certainly worthy of further attention by the government. We will be stepping into the breach as we develop a comprehensive policy after this, we think, very important first step to provide some relief for the most needy of single age pensioners.

I think it is also important to say, although it is in the explanatory memorandum, that the coalition takes a different view from the government as to the constitutional validity of the private bill. We have the view that there is no barrier to the introduction of this bill in the Senate. Section 53 of the Constitution provides in part that:

Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate.

But a bill to increase the rate of age pensions does not need to contain an appropriation of money—and this is where we part company with the government. Age pensions and other entitlements under the Social Security Act 1991 are automatically paid under a special appropriation of indefinite duration and unlimited amount in section 242 of the Social Securities Administration Act 1999. Any increase in pensions is paid for under that appropriation without any necessity for any further appropriation to be made.

If the government has advice that differs and takes issue with what we say is the constitutional validity of being able to introduce this bill under the standing appropriation of the parliament, please bring it forward. Is there any reason why the rest of us should not be enlightened on any difficulty of a legal kind that the government contends? If there is such advice, let us see it and let us have a discussion about it. That is my advice. Aided and abetted by my own background, I must say that it seems to me to be a sound basis upon which this bill has been introduced.

With those remarks I have to say that we will not be supporting the amendment, even though we do think that the sentiment behind it has merit. We think that the sensible way to proceed is to at least pick the category which we have. It has a rationale to it, and it will assist the most vulnerable and most needy of single age pensioners.

Question negatived.

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

I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 5596:

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

2A  Section 210

Omit “A person’s carer payment”, substitute “Subject to section 211, a person’s carer payment rate”.

2B  After section 210

Insert:

211 Increased carer payment rate

        (1)    If:

             (a)    a person is qualified for the carer payment under this Part; and

             (b)    the carer payment 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 carer payment rate is worked out by adding an amount equivalent to $30 per week to the person’s carer payment rate calculated under section 210.

        (2)    To avoid doubt, the carer payment 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 relates to the same provisions to provide for carers so that the carers pension is increased. Carers, as I alluded to in my speech in the second reading debate, are one of the lowest groups on the social wellbeing index for a number of reasons—low income from the carers payment, the stress of their workload and the lack of support they are getting.

I would like to point out that the Greens campaigned very strongly during the federal election on the increase in payments for carers. Carers have been calling for a doubling of their payments because of the work they do and the stresses they face. They do not get superannuation for the caring that they do, so not only are they affected by low income during their actual caring years but in their own older age they are actually very poorly provided for because they have not been in the workforce because of their caring duties. They have also been calling for some time for those areas around superannuation to be looked at.

Several months ago there was deep concern that they were not going to get the bonus payment that they had been receiving for the last couple of years and there was acknowledgement that they had been having trouble making ends meet. I have already spoken about the drawbacks of the one-off payments and the fact that they are not meeting pensioners’ needs. Carers provide a critical role in our community.

The Access Economics report of several years ago—the figures will be much higher now—showed that they provide $31 billion worth of care. If those carers were not providing that, the government would be expected to provide it. So purely from an economic rational point of view—and I for one am not arguing that we should be taking an economic rationalist point of view—these people are providing that level of care. I would argue very strongly that it is in fact higher than that now because, as I said, that was several years ago. They also pointed out that during that time the cost of living had been going up. So not only are they providing that level of care but they are even less able to make ends meet than they were a couple of years ago.

These people are carrying a tremendous workload but their own health is suffering. Not only are they in the lowest wellbeing index but they are starting to suffer from depression and illnesses themselves because of the workload that they are carrying and because they are finding it extremely difficult to make ends meet. We believe that carers should also have their pension increased by $30, which is nowhere near what they have been campaigning for. But at least it is a start until a more appropriate approach is taken to setting the base rates for all of the pensions as we have been discussing today.

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

Family First support the increase for carers and obviously support the increase for those on a disability pension. Of course there would be no surprise that we also support an increase for those on a couple pension and those 2.4 million other people on a pension that will miss out if all the amendments do not go through. As I said, we will be supporting it because we actually believe that all the people on a pension, the 3.4 million Australians on a pension, deserve an increase. They are all doing it tough and they need an increase.

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

I reiterate my remarks about how the government does not believe this is the right process to address quite serious issues that affect pensioners, carers and people on a disability support pension. I think the inadequacies of the proposals have been shown up in the debate. The opposition are struggling to add a group and explain why other groups were not in et cetera, despite the fact that we all know they are linked in the social security system and the payment of the age pension actually impacts on a range of other payments including those we are discussing. I think it just shows that trying to do this sort of policy on the run does not work. It also is the case that they have not costed their propositions. We are spending billions of dollars by upping each other on who should get paid what. It is just a ludicrous situation.

I want to remind people that in the budget the government did for the first time pay the utilities allowance to carers. It had not been done before. We paid the utilities allowance, not at the old rate that had been paid under the Howard government but at the rate of $500. Not only did we increase the utilities allowance but carers for the first time got that payment. So the $500 they did not get before was paid to carers. They got the increase in the telephone allowance and, of course, they got the bonuses which had been paid previously over the last three or four years under the Howard government.

There was the carer payment bonus of $1,000 and those on the carer allowance got the $600 bonus. So most people who were carer payment recipients got a total bonus of $1,600. So there were measures in the budget. The myth has been created that pensioners and carers got nothing out of the budget when quite the reverse is true. As I said, a carer payment recipient might have got $1,600 in bonuses plus the $500 utility allowance for the first time. That is $2,100 on top of their normal carer payment. Not all of them got that but, as I say, those were in receipt of the carer payment did receive the $1,000 bonus, the $600 bonus and the $500 utility allowance.

Some of those carers received $2,100 in addition to the base rate pension. That has to be factored into these discussions. People can shake their heads, but $2,100 is the equivalent of about $40 a week. So if you were to wipe out the bonuses for those people and pass the measure brought here, they would be on less. That is how crazy this debate is. Some of those people were to receive $2,100 in extra payments this year, and you are suggesting that they get $30 a week, which will give them less than they got out of the bonuses system. This is the exact point that the government is trying to make. There is fundamental reform needed in pension payments. There are complex issues at stake, including the payment system that grew up under the previous government and that was continued by us. We have said that that is not the way to go; you need longer term structural reform. The Howard government kept on doing the one-off pension bonuses on the basis they thought the politics of it were pretty good. It was not reform, it was just, ‘We think we’ve got some spare cash so we’ll give you the bonus.’ They never put it in the out years; they never put it in the forward budget estimates. They created expectations it would continue, but they never budgeted for it. So when we came to government last year, there was no money in the budget for the bonuses we paid this year. They had not been budgeted for.

We say those bonuses have been useful—they have assisted pensioners, they have assisted carers—but they do not fundamentally reform the pension payment system. If you like, they paper over the cracks. We are saying we need to have a reform process, a major review of these issues, to see if we cannot find a better way than just using the payment of bonuses to paper over the cracks. We made a down payment in our first budget. We had very little time to prepare for a budget, following taking office in early December. In terms of preparation for the May budget, we basically had to have it nailed down by very early in the New Year. So we made a down payment on these pensioners and carers by saying that we accepted they were struggling to make ends meet, that the standard of living that they were experiencing was perhaps not what they should enjoy, and we extended the bonus payments and added to them and said we would do a major review and that we would have that in time for the framing of the next year’s budget. We put on the record our bona fides and, as I say, the pensioners got the increase in the utilities allowance and they got the bonus, so they received $900 extra over and above the base rate pension and they have obviously received indexation. I am not saying that makes them well-off, or that it is enough or it is all you can do or all you should do, but it is the reality. When people talk about it, they have to realise that that $900 is worth about 17 bucks a week, so it is a major component of their income.

But in terms of the carer payment, as I say, here we are, saying on the run, ‘Let’s throw carers in,’ and Family First saying, ‘Let’s double it for couples,’ et cetera. But I point out to the chamber that in the budget, for the first time, those on carer payments got the $500 utilities allowance, so they were 500 bucks better off than they were the previous year. They got the increased telephone allowance and we continued the payments that have been made on a one-off basis—without being budgeted for in the out years by the previous government—of $1,000 for carer payment, $600 for carer allowance, so that some of the people in receipt of carer payments actually would have received $2,100 in bonuses. On my quick maths, that is about $40 a week. So factor that into the debate. Let us have a realistic debate rather than this one-upmanship of trying to outbid each other as if there are simple solutions to these things. There are enormous structural issues involved with changing the basis on which we calculate pensions. There are flow-on effects for tapers, for the tax rates when people work, and it impacts on the family payment system in some cases. This is complex stuff and those of us who have done this legislation in the past, who have participated in the detail of legislative debates, know how complex it is. Senator Harradine had a good grip on it, a couple of others in the chamber have. I have soldiered on manfully on a few occasions without pretending I have got across all of the detail. It is complex stuff. It is not quite as bad as the Migration Act, but it is getting there.

Let us pause and take a deep breath and admit that this is not the sort of stuff you do on the run. And, while the politics are easy, the public policy is hard. What we have set ourselves is the task of doing that hard public policy work. As I have indicated before, we will not be supporting the amendment and we will not be supporting the bill. By making this contribution, I just point out that people ought to factor in those payments that were made this year, that were in excess of the base pension or base carer payments. In fact, if you remove the bonuses and pass the resolution, they would be worse off. That is how crazy this is.

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

I think Senator Evans is in a difficult position of defending the indefensible. He is a good-hearted man, and he is putting the best spin that can be put on from a government that has done very little at all for the lowest income people in Australia. When he is talking about an extra $40 a week through $2,000 of extra payments, if you put them all together, those carers end up on less than $17,000 in income for the whole year. Let us try to live on less than $300 a week; let us try to make ends meet on that. We are having this debate because we are all getting feedback from people who, even with the bonuses—and they are very meagre bonuses that the good leader is talking about—cannot make ends meet and it has not kept their heads above water as rentals in particular spiral.

Let me just home in on that one. There are 100,000 single pension getters in this country who, when you take out the more than 40 per cent they are paying on rentals, are living on $20 a day. That is $20 for food, for shelter—they are getting their rental paid, but you know how the costs add up when you have to look after a household—for clothing, for transport, for health, for hopefully being able to buy things occasionally for children and grandchildren, to be able to maybe go to bingo or to the pictures and get some entertainment, for heating and the rest of it. They cannot make ends meet, and that is the problem. We submit that the $30 that is in this bill, which is aimed at single pension income earners, is not enough. We have never said this is going to fix things up but it gives some relief to the neediest. That is why we are a little concerned that Senator Fielding is now spreading it right across the field, because it loses sight of the fact that we did home in on the neediest. But we will support that because, right from the outset, the Greens have said that we believe that pensioners across the board should be getting a minimum $30 increase and it should be closer to $100.

I go back to this starting point, which is to do with economic responsibility. There has to be a budget brought in each year, but this year’s budget could not afford the $2.2 billion that these measures the Greens are bringing forward now would cost, to alleviate the misery of more than a million pensioners and carers. It could not find that $2.2 billion per annum but it could find $31 billion for the tax cuts across the board, and not least the $5 billion-plus for high-income earners’ tax cuts. Treasury did not have any trouble working out how much that cost. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer had no trouble bringing that in in the budget. But I remind the Senate that there was no committee inquiry into that, there was no going out and asking high-income earners if they could make ends meet, how they were getting along. They were simply given this gift.

It is specious for the government to say, ‘Oh, it was too difficult to work out how we could give a small increase to people at the other end of the income scale which would have been a fraction of that which we found for high-income earners.’ It just does not figure. Good on the opposition for bringing this bill in because we are having this debate now and it is continuing to say to the government, ‘Well, you might ignore this bill and you might have the numbers in the House of Representatives to block it, but this is part of a pressure based on need which is not going to go away—not this week, not next week, not next month, until the government acts on it. It is just a fair go that it act on it early and not put it off until the last minute in the run to next year’s budget, because a lot of unnecessary hardship will be created in the meantime. I am not talking about hardship for the government but hardship for the pensioners, who deserve this lift.

Senator Evans has said that this is a Dutch auction. No, it is not. This is a serious move to try to get some money to the people who are in need. To say it is a Dutch auction is simply to say, ‘Ultimately none of them do and we are not prepared to draw a line anywhere. Because it is complicated and there are various claimants, we won’t give anything to anybody until sometime next year after we’ve had more prolonged inquiries to see how we can juggle that into the budget.’ I remind the Senate again that in the last two budgets more than $50 billion over four years has been given in tax cuts. That makes the amounts of money we are looking at here look very tiny indeed; they are a small percentage of that sum. The government would have been very wise and very fair had it simply said, ‘If we are not responding to this bill, we will give this rise in the coming short period of time, and here is how we are going to do it.’ After all, let us not forget that the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance and the Deputy Prime Minister have all said they could not live on the very amounts that the leader of the government in here was saying had been boosted, the boosted amounts that he was saying a while ago had gone to pensioners.

This amendment is important. The bill is more important. But the need for the government to act as a result of these deliberations tonight, and hopefully the passage of this bill, is all the more urgent if it says it cannot agree to this here and now. Do not leave it till next year; get on with this and make an announcement in the coming weeks. It is just not fair to those thousands of people out there who cannot make ends meet. It is easy for us to talk about their getting an extra $40 here and an extra $17 there and they will get an extra $30 through this measure if we were to pass it. The fact is that it is very easy to overlook the straitened circumstances they are in, and we should not do that.

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

I will very briefly address this amendment. Senator Evans referred to this being a ludicrous situation. I do not really know whether he meant to say that. I think that Senator Evans is a well-intentioned person and I would not want to attribute to him a meaning he did not intend. But he said that this was a ludicrous situation. It is clear to me that the 928,834 needy Australians who will be the immediate beneficiaries of this additional payment of $30 per week over and above the base pension certainly do not think that $30 a week is ludicrous. I am fortified in my view that people do not think it is ludicrous by a press release today from National Seniors Australia. National Seniors Australia Chief Executive Michael O’Neill said he welcomed the bill, despite claims about the speed with which it was introduced et cetera. He said:

Older Australians are pleased that by introducing this bill into the Senate the pension issue is finally firmly on the national agenda.

He continued:

Single age pensioners living off $281 a week are struggling to keep their heads above water as food, fuel, rental and medical costs soar.

And I would refer to the costs that have gone through the roof since the Rudd Labor government came into office, unaddressed by the government despite promises that they would keep a lid on cost of living increases. Mr O’Neill went on to say:

For these older Australians, an immediate increase represents more than a steak, rather than baked beans, for dinner.

He also said:

It is very much a matter of social inclusion and providing older Australians with the support they need to live their old age productively.

Then he went on to say:

Despite declaring the single age pension inadequate only two weeks ago, Treasurer Wayne Swan has clearly stated a pension increase will only be made in the context of next year’s budget.

I actually agree with Senator Brown on this issue—how can that be fair? We can only assume the government are actually competent enough to manage a budget and to provide for the most needy Australians—let’s make that assumption. So how can it be that they cannot even look at it or make any commitment without not one but two reviews? This government is addicted to reviews—absolutely paralysed by inaction, incapable of making a decision about anything. We have the Prime Minister absent, swanning around the world stage, and we have needy Australians here looking to the Rudd Labor government to do something about the plight they are in. And what sort of answer do we get from Senator Evans tonight, who is trying to defend the indefensible? ‘It’s complex. We need to look at it and do it properly.’ That is no excuse, I say.

We have to—all of us, collectively—do something for pensioners before two years elapse, which is what we are looking at. The Harmer review will not report until February next year. It is said that that will then feed into the Henry review on tax. So we are looking at something like 2010 before we actually get some serious comprehensive attention to the plight of pensioners. I do not think that is good enough. Quite frankly, it is a very good thing that we are debating the need to do something for these needy Australians and holding the government to account. We can talk here for hours on end rhetorically about who did what and when, but the point is the government are now the Rudd Labor government. They are in the driving seat. They are sitting on an inherited surplus this year of $21.5 billion and $94-odd billion over the next five years. If they cannot manage their priorities to do something for the most needy Australians, they should not be in government.

It is important in the circumstances that we address this bill and that we bring this debate to a sensible conclusion. I say to Senator Evans, who is the minister representing Ms Macklin and who obviously has some input, history, capacity and ability: make a real change, get on with it, do it, do not talk about it, do not blame anyone else and just fix it.

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

The question is that Greens amendment (1) on sheet of 5596 be agreed to.

Question negatived.

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

We have probably already had the debate on the matter of my proposed amendments in the broader debate about making sure that not only singles and veterans are covered but also those couples on pensions are covered. Those couples are also worthy of an increase. As I said before, there are 2.4 million pensioners that will not get anything out of this bill. They are the ones that are going to be forgotten. I seek leave to move the amendments standing in my name together.

Leave granted.

I move Family First amendments (1) to (8) on sheet 5594:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 11), omit “single”.

(2)    Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 15), omit paragraph (1)(c).

(3)    Schedule 1, page 3 (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;

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.

2C  Section 159

Omit “A woman’s wife pension rate”, substitute “Subject to section 160, a woman’s wife pension rate”.

2D  After section 159

Insert:

160 Increased wife pension rate

        (1)    If:

             (a)    a woman is qualified for the wife pension under this Part; and

             (b)    the wife pension is payable to that woman under this Part;

then, for the purpose of making payments under Division 4 of Part 3 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1991, the woman’s wife pension rate is worked out by adding an amount equivalent to $30 per week to the woman’s wife pension rate calculated under section 159.

        (2)    To avoid doubt, the wife 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.

2E  Section 210

Omit “A person’s carer payment”, substitute “Subject to section 211, a person’s carer payment rate”.

2F  After section 210

Insert:

211 Increased carer payment rate

        (1)    If:

             (a)    a person is qualified for the carer payment under this Part; and

             (b)    the carer payment is payable to that person under this Part;

then, for the purpose of making payments under Division 4 of Part 3 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1991, the person’s carer payment rate is worked out by adding an amount equivalent to $30 per week to the person’s carer payment rate calculated under section 210.

        (2)    To avoid doubt, the carer payment 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.

(4)    Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 15), after item 4, insert:

4A  Section 503

Omit “A person’s parenting payment rate”, substitute “Subject to section 503AAA, a person’s parenting payment rate”.

4B  After section 503

Insert:

503AAA Increased parenting payment

        (1)    If:

             (a)    a person is qualified for the parenting payment under this Part; and

             (b)    the parenting payment is payable to that person under this Part;

then, for the purpose of making payments under Division 4 of Part 3 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1991, the person’s parenting payment rate is worked out by adding an amount equivalent to $30 per week to the person’s parenting payment rate calculated under section 503.

        (2)    To avoid doubt, the parenting payment 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.

(5)    Schedule 1, page 4 (before line 17), before item 5, insert:

4C  Subsection 22(3)

Omit “$338.94”, substitute “$398.94”.

4D  Subsection 22(4)

Omit “$510.40”, substitute “$570.40”.

4E  Subsection 23(4)

Omit $619.80”, substitute “$679.80”.

4F  Subsection 24(4)

Omit “$919.40”, substitute “$979.40”.

4G  Paragraph 30(1)(a)

Omit “$312.10”, substitute “$372.10”.

(6)    Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 22), omit “single”.

(7)    Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 28), omit paragraph (1)(c).

(8)    Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 4), at the end of the Schedule, add:

7  Section 37N

Omit “A veteran’s invalidity service pension rate”, substitute “Subject to section 37P, a veteran’s invalidity service pension rate”.

8  After section 37N

Insert:

37P Increased pension rate for invalidity service pensioners

        (1)    If:

             (a)    a veteran is qualified for the invalidity service pension under this Part; and

             (b)    the invalidity service pension is payable to that veteran under this Part;

then, for the purpose of making payments under Part VIII, the veteran’s invalidity service pension rate is worked out by adding an amount equivalent to $30 per week to the veteran’s invalidity service pension rate calculated under section 37N.

        (2)    To avoid doubt, the invalidity service 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.

9  Section 38N

Omit “A person’s partner service pension rate”, substitute “Subject to section 38P, a person’s partner service pension rate”.

10  After section 38N

Insert:

38P Increased pension rate for partner service pensioners

        (1)    If:

             (a)    a person is qualified for the partner service pension under this Part; and

             (b)    the partner service pension is payable to that person under this Part;

then, for the purpose of making payments under Part VIII, the person’s partner service pension rate is worked out by adding an amount equivalent to $30 per week to the person’s partner service pension rate calculated under section 38N.

        (2)    To avoid doubt, the partner service 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.

11  Section 45S

Omit “The rate of income support supplement”, substitute “Subject to section 45SA, the rate of income support supplement”.

12  After section 45

Insert:

45SA Increased income support supplement

        (1)    If:

             (a)    a person is qualified for the income support supplement under this Part; and

             (b)    the income support supplement is payable to that person under this Part;

then, for the purpose of making payments under Part VIII the person’s income support supplement rate is worked out by adding an amount equivalent to $30 per week to the person’s income support supplement rate calculated under section 503.

        (2)    To avoid doubt, the income support supplement 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.

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

I ask Senator Fielding and Family First what this measure would cost.

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

I appreciate the question. We costed it last year and it was about $3.5 billion in total for the whole lot—for all the 3.4 million pensioners, rather just looking at one million pensioners. It has always been costed.

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

I indicate to be helpful that the latest information I have to hand is that Senator Fielding is roughly right about the number of pensioners affected by the original Liberal proposition. About 913,000 pensioners would receive some benefit from the proposition. That leaves about 2.7 million people on pensions, carer payments et cetera with nothing as a result of that measure. So it is clear that it is not a fundamental reform; it is a political stunt that goes no way to addressing the vast majority of people who rely on these payments. It is providing something, yes, for 900,000 people if it was to be implemented, but it is doing nothing for the other 2.7 million. That makes the point that this is knee-jerk, populist, but it does not fundamentally deal with the serious public policy issues.

While I know that people argue that some groups are more in need than others—and I am sure that that is true, although the arguments about which groups and why, whether or not they are the people in public housing, in the private rental market et cetera, are not convincing—the reality is that those same base rates are being used to set all of these benefits and they flow from the original age pension. What we are doing is breaking from that long established position. If the Liberal proposition was to be supported, they would be saying ‘Well, these 900,000 will get the benefit, and the other 2.7 million, tough luck, even though that linkage was accepted for the 12 years we were in government. Suddenly, after nine months in opposition we have decided that’s not relevant anymore; it’s not important anymore; there’s no basis for that anymore. We’ve had this conversion on the road to Damascus.’ Senator Coonan says to me, ‘Well, just fix it. In nine months fix what we failed to deal with in 12 years. It’s all your problem, don’t blame us, you fix it.’

Well, that is easily said. It is much more complex than that. Anyway, we have had those debates. I do not want to labour the point, but we are talking about another 2.7 million people who would get nothing. The Greens are trying to pick up some of those concerns with adding in some other categories, and Senator Fielding, if you like, has doubled it by adding those who are in a partnership—double or nothing. On the latest information I have, if we support the package as amended by the Greens and Senator Fielding, I think we are adding something in the order of $5.7 billion a year. It is $5.7 billion a year, just like that, because they think it is a good idea, without any understanding of the ramifications throughout the aged-care sector, the housing sector, the tapers, the family payments allowance impacts—the thousand impacts that come from a change in the base rate of the pension. ‘Oh, and by the way, it is going to cost $5.7 billion a year.’ That is the sort of depth of consideration that has been given to these issues. ‘Throw in cuts to petrol prices and all those other things; it is very easy.’ Unfortunately the opposition has adopted this position of being all care and no responsibility very quickly. As someone who did 11 hard years in opposition, it does not work like that. You don’t actually get any credit for it. You actually have to—

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

You are certainly not going to get any credit for the way you are going.

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

Well, you have to act like an alternative government. I know when you first go into opposition there is a lot of hurt, there is a lot of pain, but the cheap, populist stuff does not work. I am sure you will come to that realisation, as we did. You might think it is winning you a few cheers now, but people understand it is complex, they understand it is expensive and I think they know that the government is committed to trying to do something for those living on pension payments. But it is complex and requires lot of good public policy work. The government is committed to doing that, having made a down payment, if you like, in its first budget. It was a reasonable question by Senator Brown—and I think Senator Fielding’s response was pretty close to the mark—but we are talking about billions of dollars being done on the run in the Senate chamber. The Liberal proposition was more modest, I suspect, because they knew how expensive this stuff was and they could not defend it publicly, because on the basis of their arguments you would give the payment to everybody. That is the logic of their position. There has been no argument advanced as to why one would exclude carers on the DSP et cetera. The opposition found that when they scrambled to throw vets in. They could not withstand the public pressure about ignoring the veterans, but they were still happy to ignore the carers and those on DSP.

Anyway, we all make our own choices, but the bottom line is that those figures do need to be on the table on the understanding that the costs involved are enormous. As I pointed out earlier, nobody has indicated yet whether they intend to discontinue the bonuses as part of their propositions. I have not heard anyone addressed that—I might have missed it. I would be interested, of course, whether or not the bonuses are to continue under the Liberal proposition. If that is the case, I have got their costings wrong. I would be interested if, before this debate ends, Senator Coonan could inform the Senate as to whether or not the Liberal Party intend for the bonuses to be paid next year—and the utilities allowance; whether these are on top of those payments or replacing those repayments, because obviously that will add enormously to the costs. As I said, with the carers, we have a $1,000 bonus and a $600 bonus. Some people get both. With the utilities allowance, some people will receive bonuses of up to $2,100, which actually puts them better off than with this proposition. I think it is important that we put that stuff on the table—that we hear from the minors and from the Liberal Party opposition whether or not their propositions are in addition to the bonuses and whether or not they have costed the bonuses into the figures they claim. We are just throwing cash around here willy-nilly. I think it is important we understand what people are actually advocating here. In any event, as I say, on the basis of Senator Fielding extending with his amendments the increases to about 3,690,000 people, which is way above the figure of 900,000 who would benefit from the original Liberal proposition, we end up with a figure, on a rough calculation, of about $5.7 billion per annum or $22 billion to $23 billion over the budget cycle.

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

I must say that an enduring image of the lead-up to the last budget was the sight of Labor scrambling to pay the carers bonus and the bonus for seniors, having refused to make any commitment and then scrambling to provide the list of so-called benefits that I think Senator Evans has now outlined on four or five occasions. It does not actually get any better no matter however many times you say it; it is still meagre. What the coalition is proposing is to provide, in addition to those bonuses, a $30 payment. One of the things that appears to be confusing Minister Macklin—and she has infected Senator Evans with her lack of understanding—is the idea that this payment will actually affect the base rate. That is not the intention and the bill expressly provides that it will not have that effect. It is a payment in addition to the base rate pension. Ms Macklin was quoted as saying something which I think is quite extraordinary and which I will share with the chamber. She said:

Many of them are pleading with us to not just increase the base rate of the pension, because if that happens they will see a lot of the increase in the pension go in increased rents.

She obviously has not read the bill, because quite obviously the additional $30 per week is not added on for the rate used under the income test and is not used for other purposes—for example, like setting the daily care fee in a nursing home, which is currently 85 per cent of the single pension rate.

So, yes, it is complex, but rather than creating policy on the run we have actually thought this through and done it in a way such that this is calculated to actually give the intended recipient some benefit—rather than the endless empty rhetoric and promises we hear from the Labor Party. I must say I find it really peculiar logic that the Labor Party is engaged in in this debate—about the 928,834 people included in this measure—that, because not every pension recipient is included, those 928,834 people should miss out. That is quite extraordinary: to actually be advocating that if you do not have everybody in then nobody should get it. And then they are opposing an amendment of Senator Fielding because he wants to put them in. Go figure. You cannot have it every which way. This has to be a serious look at a rationale for looking after the most vulnerable, disadvantaged aged pensioners. The rationale for that is clear—that is not something that is difficult to talk about or difficult to justify. Nobody says that carers do not deserve some urgent attention, and I certainly think that the government should be looking at them before there are two reviews and a couple of years of water under the bridge.

Recently the Rudd government presented the states and territories with a proposal that would actually transfer all disability services to the states’ responsibility. The Rudd government has clearly washed its hands of the aged, carers and people with a disability—just as it is attempting to do through its proposal to transfer control of disability services over to the states and territories. All that carers have got from the Labor government is uncertainty. It refused to rule out cutting the carers bonus. Reluctantly, kicking and screaming, the Rudd government backed down under pressure from the coalition and from constituents. We are currently looking at a comprehensive policy that will cover all pension recipients and do it in a way that the most vulnerable in our society, including carers and people with disability, are assisted.

The rationale for our current bill, however, is that there is, as Senator Evans quite rightly points out, a lot of different rates and benefits. I am very pleased to see this, but age pensioners are not eligible for some of the extra benefits that disability support pensioners receive for their particular circumstances. That does of course make them particularly vulnerable because they do not get some of the extra benefits, say, that a single at home under-18-year-old gets if they have a disability of $295.10 a fortnight. A single independent under 18 gets $456 per fortnight. A single at home aged 18 to 20 gets a different rate. A single independent aged 18 to 20 gets a different rate again. None of these is applicable to the age pension. A member of a couple gets $456 per fortnight, but that is not applicable to the age pension. A member of a couple with disabilities gets a different benefit not applicable to the age pension.

So there are different benefits that are available to different pension recipients. That is in no way to say that, across the board, pension recipients do not need some urgent attention, but the rationale for this bill is very clear. It has been thought through. It is anything other than policy on the run. The coalition is deadly serious that this is a group of people who need help. They need it now, and the Labor government should get on with it and deliver it.

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

I just want to be sure that I do not misrepresent Senator Coonan. I take it that, in response to my earlier comments, she has confirmed that the Liberal-National Party coalition are committing to a $30 increase in the rate of the base pension for all single age pensioners and veterans—and that that is to be on top of maintenance of the $500 annual utility allowance, the maintenance of the $500 bonus, and the maintenance of the $1,000 carer and $600 carer payment bonuses. I just want to be certain, when I do the costings of these policies, that that is what the Liberal opposition is committing to.

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

That’s what I said.

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

I just want to be absolutely clear so that I do not then misrepresent you, because that is the first time I have heard that stated as Liberal Party policy. I do not want to be accused of misunderstanding. So you are committing to all of those payments on the same basis that they are currently paid and to the propositions contained in your bill.

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

I will answer that, because that is not what I said. What I said was that we will be paying an additional $30 and that that is in addition to the pension; it is not part of the base rate of the pension. It is over and above the base rate pension. I am making absolutely no other commitment. The Rudd Labor government is in government, and it will be a matter for them as to what they do with any other arrangements and bonuses. We will, as part of looking at our overall comprehensive response, make our announcements about this in due course.

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

I think it is important that I respond, because this is quite a revelation to me. Certainly Senator Coonan indicated earlier that the $30 would be additional to the bonuses. We now have the proposition that she will not guarantee the bonuses, so carers and others might be up to $40 a week worse off under the proposition she has just outlined, which I think will be of concern to those carers. But, if we take it that the average pensioner is currently receiving the $500 bonus and the $500 utility allowance, they are receiving $1,000 under the Rudd Labor government budget which the opposition spokesman will not guarantee—sorry, no longer the opposition spokesman; like former Minister Abbott, she seems not to want to retain an interest in these areas. It would seem to me that what the Liberal Party are now saying is that they are supporting a $30 a week increase for a small number of the pensioners—the 900,000 on the age and veterans affairs pensions—but are refusing to guarantee the equivalent of the $20-a-week rate that pensioners got from this government as a set of bonuses and through the payment of the utilities allowance. So, potentially, what we are hearing now is that the Liberal Party’s proposition is that we increase the base pension rate by $30 and take away the equivalent of $20 a week which we pay through the bonus system. Originally Senator Coonan indicated to the Senate that the $30 a week pension increase was in addition to the payment of those allowances. In her last contribution Senator Coonan said that she could not guarantee that and that that was a question for review.

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

No, they’re already paid.

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

No, it is about future policy, Senator Coonan.

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

That’s for you, not us.

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

This is about how you suggest you would frame the budget. If it were about us you would not be putting the bill up. You are attempting to set the social security policy of the nation.

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

No, I’m not. I’m trying to save people.

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

You are trying to move a new bill. I think pensioners listening tonight would want to know: are you offering them $30 a week and taking $20 away, so that you are offering them $10 net, or are you offering them $30 plus the $20? On the basis of what you just said, you are offering them $30 minus the $20 that you are not going to guarantee—the $1,000 worth of bonuses they received this year under the Rudd Labor government. So I think it is important. I have not heard from the minors on this question either.

If you are going to parade around the place saying that you are going to be the saviour of pensioners by making these promises that you never actually delivered in government, I think we need to be clear: what is the alternative government saying? Are you saying that you are supporting a $30 increase in the pension rate for single pensioners and veterans but that you are not going to guarantee the bonuses, or are you guaranteeing the bonuses and saying that the $30 is in addition to those bonus payments? It is a fairly simple question—it is something that we ought to know—but so far, Senator Coonan, you have given two different answers to the same question. I am sure pensioners and the Senate would like to know the answer.

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

I am quite sure that Senator Evans’s confected confusion is not genuine, because what I have clearly said, and what this bill clearly provides, is that we are paying an additional $30 per week over and above the base indexed pension rate. It is not an increase to the pension rate; it is a $30 payment over and above it. I do not think that that is a difficult proposition. That is what the bill says. If Senator Evans has read the bill, it must be obvious.

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

Are you guaranteeing the bonuses or not?

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

Well, are you? This is a question for the Labor government. Are you going to guarantee the bonuses in future? You scrambled; you had no idea whether you were going to pay anything at all this year before the budget. When I was referring to ‘over and above’ with the bonuses, I was talking about what is already being paid. We have under review our policies—

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

Oh, you’re having a review.

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

No, we are not having a review. We are not having your review. We are having a good and serious look at how we can have a comprehensive response across the board for our pensioners. I doubt it would take us two whole reviews—the Harmer review and the Henry review. It is very interesting when you look at the Labor government: if they really want to slug the Australian public, they do not bother to wait for a review to get the luxury car tax slug onto Australians; that is in here before there is any review. So, if it suits the Labor government to slug Australians, they just put up taxes. But it certainly does not wash when it comes to the most needy Australians. We are saying, and have said very clearly, what we are doing. You are the government, and the question for you is: are you going to guarantee the bonuses into the future?

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

I would like to put it on the record that, from a Greens perspective, this is on top of the bonuses. It is in addition to the bonuses.

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

The question is that amendments (1) to (8) on sheet 5594, moved by Senator Fielding, be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.