Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) 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 Abetz and Bernardi today relating to the age pension.

The Australian people have had to tolerate for too long the disingenuous antics of Mr Rudd, Senator Evans and other Labor ministers over the plight of pensioners in our community. Firstly, they assert that we did nothing which, of course, is false. Secondly, based on this false assertion, Labor claim that they do not need to do anything. Even if their first assertion is true, which it clearly is not, it is no excuse for neglecting the plight of Australia’s pensioners.

The coalition has a relatively proud record on pensions. Which party indexed the age pension? It was the coalition. Which party increased the pension to link it to average weekly earnings? It was the coalition. That linkage means that the pension today is now $2,183 a year more than it would have been under Labor’s miserly CPI-only policy. At the last election we had a specific policy of increasing the pension in line with the cost of living as actually experienced by pensioners. We knew that something had to give.

Labor did not criticise our policy during the last election campaign. Now, as we seek to pursue our policy that we took to the last election campaign, Labor’s only defence—a pathetic defence and unsustainable defence—is to make the claim, the false claim, that we did nothing. The objective evidence simply does not match Labor’s false spin. Day after day, week after week, month after month Labor repeat their false mantra that the coalition did nothing. Labor monotonously repeat their falsehoods, hoping that mere repetition will obviate the need for evidence. Today the evidence from Labor’s own departments exposes the lie of those that assert that we did nothing.

If Labor actually believe their propaganda—if they believe that pensioners had been neglected for 11½ years during their time in opposition, as they assert—I would have thought they might have gone to last year’s election with a specific policy to address this neglect, but they did not. They only discovered the coalition’s alleged neglect after the election. After 11½ years you would have thought Labor, on coming into office, would have said, ‘One of our top priorities has to be dealing with this gross injustice of the coalition,’ allegedly not dealing with the pension appropriately. But no—they have no intention of dealing with it. We pass legislation through the Senate to increase the pension and Labor deliberately ignore it. So the implication of what Labor say is that Labor watched for 11½ years as pensioners were allegedly neglected but brought no policy to the table or to the last election.

This highlights the duplicity of the Labor Party. The simple fact is the coalition maintained the pension in real terms by introducing indexation. We then increased the pension in real terms by linking it to average weekly earnings, which of course rose more steadily than inflation under the Howard-Costello stewardship. The cost-of-living problems that are now being experienced have been experienced for roughly 18 to 24 months, and that is why 12 months ago we on this side, recognising that problem, took a specific policy to the last election to ensure that pensions were maintained on the basis of the cost of living.

The simple fact is Australian pensioners deserve, as a minimum, a $30 per week increase. Mr Rudd knows it. He says he could not live on the pension. Mr Swan knows it. He says he could not live on the pension. But before they grant an increase, guess what Labor need to do? After having witnessed 11½ years of neglect, they have to have an inquiry and then possibly do something in 18 months time. Pensioners deserve an increase now. (Time expired)

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How interesting it is to see Senator Abetz so earnestly try to rewrite history. We know the coalition have taken an ill-informed, quite appalling step in exploiting the concerns of pensioners by putting forward a bill that was ill thought out policy on the run. What we know about the coalition’s stunt this week is that over 1.1 million pensioners who are couples, over 700 disability support pensioners and over 100,000 carers payment recipients were completely ignored by the coalition. In fact, the opposition, as Senator Abetz kindly reminded us, did nothing over the 12 long years of their government, with cabinet even voting against a proposal, as we now know, from the former minister Mr Brough to increase the base rate of the age pension. I know I heard Senator Abetz say in this place that they knew something had to give with pensions, and yet they did not do anything until they found themselves in opposition, where they have cooked up a slipshod media stunt to try and get on the front foot with the growing consternation amongst pensioners about their needs.

What we know about the coalition’s bill is that it ignores over two million pensioners. It is not indexed. Remember, we just heard Senator Abetz say how much focus the coalition put on indexation, and yet this feature is lacking from the bill they brought forward to this place this week. What is going on? To me, that says ‘stunt’ all over.

A quick and dirty rewrite of history is not going to save the coalition’s face in their handling of this issue. We know that they are embarrassed by their own performance this week. They tried to allude in a snide way to the plight of pensioners in the first question time of this week with some surreptitious supplementary questions—not even having the political fortitude to ask these questions upfront. It was only when we as government senators drew that to their attention that they thought they had better put the issue on the front foot when the opportunity arose in this chamber during the latter part of the week, such as today.

When we debated the bill, I might remind senators and those listening, they could only stump up with one speaker. Such is the poor form of the coalition.

Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is that, as no doubt Senator Lundy well knows—and Senator Ludwig well knows—there was an agreement reached between Senator Ludwig and the whips on this side of the chamber that there would be one speaker and one speaker only from this side and one speaker from Labor. This was to accommodate the Labor government’s schedule. I can see Senator Ludwig talking to Senator Lundy, and no doubt he will tell her that she is wrong. I would ask her to refer to the agreement.

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

Order! Senator Coonan, that is not exactly a point of order—it is a very good debating point—but I think you may have got your point across.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is true, and I would like to say to Senator Coonan that I have just been informed that there was such an agreement, but my prior point still holds firm—that the coalition have not used all the opportunities available to them through other vehicles in this chamber through the course of this week, and I think they are embarrassed by that.

All of this stands in contrast to the government’s position on pensions, which has always been clear. In opposition, Labor instituted a Senate inquiry into the cost-of-living pressures facing senior Australians, and the first recommendation of the bipartisan report of that inquiry, which was tabled in March of this year, was:

… that the Government review the suitability of the base pension levels through economic analyses of amounts required to achieve at least a modest standard of living for retired Australians, with particular consideration given to the adequacy of the percentage rate for single older people receiving the age pension compared to couples.

On budget night we acted on this bipartisan recommendation by instituting the Henry review of tax and welfare and, recognising the urgency of the pensions issue, the government asked Dr Jeff Harmer to complete this part of the Henry review and report back to the government by no later than the end of February next year. The pensions review is well underway, as we all know.

Since the Senate inquiry, there have been many calls from seniors groups, disability groups, carers groups, individuals and so forth to improve pensions and payments. I would like to contrast this enthusiasm and willingness to engage with the low morale that existed amongst pensioners, carers, recipients of disability support et cetera under the Howard government. They now have some hope that there will be action from the Labor government through this very sensible course of action that is looking at the issues in a structured and serious way and not in the way that the coalition did, which was the embodiment of a political stunt.

So I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate those advocates of our pensioners of all different types in the country and to thank them for engaging with Labor’s process. I have great confidence that, being the wise and experienced constituency that they are, they too can see through the political stunt that we are observing from the opposition this week in parliament.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let us start with the comment on stunts. The first stunt I will talk about is Senator Lundy standing up and saying that the Liberal and National coalition did not have speakers. There was an agreement in this place that there was to be one speaker each. She should acknowledge that, and Senator Evans should acknowledge that. That was completely misleading this chamber.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I stood up and acknowledged the point that was made by Senator Coonan, and I do not like being further misrepresented by Senator Joyce.

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

Order! Senator Lundy, that is not a point of order. You can make a personal explanation later, if you like, but that is not a point of order.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Evans and the Labor Party today are going on with this because they are taking pensioners for fools by trying to imply something that is not the truth of how the process went. That is another indictment on how the Labor Party is taking pensioners completely and utterly for granted. This is a complete insult. Of course, we could have lined up speakers from here to outside the chamber and down the street if we had needed to, because we do take the position of pensioners very seriously. I know there is more we can do, but at least we are doing something. We are doing something, as opposed to the Labor Party, which is doing nothing but having an inquiry. If it is a stunt that gives them more money then let us call it a stunt. Call it what you want, because we are trying to alleviate some of the pressure on these people that is occurring.

Let us just go through it. Under a coalition government there was a real increase in pensions. That is a fact. I would suggest very seriously that under the Labor Party government there has been a real decrease in pensions by reason of the increase in fuel, groceries and all of these things that they have absolutely no control of and have not got a clue how to deal with. Yet, in the same process, they have been hypothesising and philosophising about a measly $30 per pensioner. Then they said, ‘It does not go far enough.’ So what is their solution? It is to give it to no-one. They said, ‘It does not go far enough, so we will give it to no-one.’ That is another Labor Party solution.

On top of this situation where there are so many stresses on the budget, we see that the superannuation of so many of these pensioners is also going down and is under severe threat. So what does Mr Rudd do? He goes to New York. That is his solution to the problem. The sorts of emails that are coming in are saying, ‘It is interesting to see that Kevin, our prime tourist’—the Prime Minister—‘is wanting to charge us a carbon tax. This is a person who has travelled 160,000 miles in his 737, which equates to almost one million litres of fuel for our prime sponsored tourist, yet this person cannot find it within his capacity to find $30 per pensioner.’ If Labor think they are going to do something better in the future, they should pass the $30 and then add to it, if that is where their heart really is. But that is not the issue.

We have heard about stunts. I will mention a few more stunts. Fuelwatch was a pretty handy stunt; I am sure the pensioners were happy about that stunt. What a fiasco. GroceryWatch—another stunt and another fiasco. The education revolution, the toolbox of the 21st century—another fiasco and another stunt. I would be very careful about talking about stunts if I were on the Labor Party side because it is a rhetorical wonderland over there. When it comes to really delivering an outcome, all they can do is sneer and snarl and then give some reason about why they could not help yet again. Their proposition that they are going to have an inquiry into the $30 a week, plus other issues at a later stage, is absurd. I think the Australian people have had it up to the gunwales with impending inquiries as the solution to their problems.

We have tried to help. There have been discussions in the joint party room over a long period of time. As has been documented, our government was about trying to bring forward a process of alleviating the pressure on pensioners. But that is not the dictum of this government. The dictum of this government is to sit back, to become, after such a short period of time, content and smug and to leave pensioners almost in destitution. I think it is an absolute disgrace.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate on the opposition’s approach to pension policy has not just started over the last couple of days. We saw in the week or two leading up to the recent government budget cynical attempts by the opposition, jostling with the government, to scare the community, to create outrage amongst pensioners and to get our government to leak what was going to be in the upcoming budget.

We know that that happens with every budget. We know that every government is very clear that when they are preparing their budget they are trying to pull everything together so that the full budget process is announced on the night of the budget. But what we clearly had from this opposition in the period leading up to that in the media were attacks on people’s security, their fears and worries, with goading statements alleging that this government was not going to provide the pension bonus and alleging, to quote from debates we have heard from different people in this place, that the government was going to cut pensions and that it was not going to have a heart.

What we had to do at that time was respond to assure pensioners that the government was considering their issues. But, through that whole process, we could see that the opposition had no qualms about using public response, about creating a sensation of fear and about making promises that they could not keep—promises that were not in their purview to keep but, rather, a budget decision. What they were doing was using that to gain a cheap political point. So, when it came through, when the budget was handed down and the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and the various ministers worked through the number of provisions that were made in that budget looking at ensuring that pensioners got their bonuses and ensuring that the carers and people on other forms of payments also received acknowledgement and payment in that budget, and when we also saw that we would increase the utilities allowance, giving people a massive increase in the utilities allowance over the whole 12 months—not just in one payment but in a series of payments—there was no claim made by the government that this was going to be the full response to the overwhelming needs of pensioners. At no time was that claim made. Rather, we acknowledged that consideration needed to be given to a range of changes to the system that was looking at providing support to people in need.

Through the committee process and the report that came down in March this year looking at the cost-of-living pressures on older Australians, a range of recommendations were made by that committee. Senators from all sides of this place worked together and listened to the genuine needs of pensioners in this country. What we saw was that there was a range of needs. It is very difficult just to talk about the single word ‘pensioner’ because that covers so many people. But what we did acknowledge and identify, as a unified Senate, was that there needed to be clear consideration given to the whole system. What has been happening for too long has been that this complex system has had a range of bandaid measures put in place so that the clear inequities of this system have not been identified and a government response made.

That is what we are doing with the Harmer inquiry. It is not an easy job, but we are working with pensioners and people who know this system across the whole country. It is not the cheap, one-line media grab. It is way too easy to do that, and I think so many of us have fallen for that trick. It is easy to get a response by making a statement out there that can give you a quick response, but what is wrong and what is very, very sad in this whole process is that what pensioners are now seeing is an expectation that has been created, without the background, without the acknowledgement of how the system needs to be changed in the long term. Figures are being thrown around, and the confusion and fear that that is causing is wrong.

That was not the intent of the Senate inquiry that worked on the issues that were faced by older Australians. That is not the intent of people who are working in the system now. But figures are being thrown around and what we are talking about now is a significant increase. Of course that is attractive—there is no way it is not—but it does not address the underlying problems, it does not address the issues that we have seen raised by so many people about how flat increases can sometimes be eroded immediately by other expenses, how some people have views about bonus payments as opposed to a series of payments across a 12-month cycle. We need to get this right. (Time expired)

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wonder what Mr Rudd was thinking last night as he dined in New York whilst conveniently ignoring the issue that matters to many Australians—in fact, to all Australians except those on the other side—and that is the issue of pensioners. I wonder if Mr Rudd had baked beans on toast for dinner last night. I think not! I bet what he had was a lot fancier and a lot tastier than what the pensioners here in Australia had last night. But what is worse is that this is the Prime Minister who, at a very recent press conference, on 9 September, had this to say:

I agree with both Wayne and Julia, I think it would be almost impossible to continue to live on the current single aged pension.

And then he was quoted in the Age on Wednesday, 10 September, saying:

Living on the single aged pension is very, very tough, which is why we are committed to its reform.

This is yet another example of the long line of spin, rhetoric and no-substance approach to Labor’s policy which the Rudd government is making—spin over substance every time.

In talking about spin over substance, I note that the other side have yet again raised that we provided only one speaker on the pension issue—one speaker by agreement—and they also provided only one speaker. They now have the audacity to stand up in this chamber and say to us on this side that we do not care about pensioners. I say to you: ‘We’re the opposition; you’re the government. You provided one speaker. What does that say about you?’ Not a lot.

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

Order! Senator Cash, you must address your remarks through the chair.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. This is the government who went to the election last year promising to ease the cost of living for all Australians. This is the government who went to the election last year promising that those on pensions would not be worse off. How can the Prime Minister of Australia agree that ‘it would be almost impossible to continue to live on the current single aged pension’, how can he promise that those on pensions will not be worse off under a Rudd budget and then not do anything about their plight? In fact, they not only do not do anything about the plight of pensioners but when we on this side of politics offer a solution, a first step to help ease the burden on pensions, they call it a political stunt. But I would expect nothing less from those on the other side. It is a solution that we on this side of politics are proposing, not a political stunt.

We are not alone in that opinion. Let us look at some of the media headlines from today. The MaitlandMercury says, ‘Pensioners want action on increase’. The Adelaide Advertiser says, ‘Pensioners should not have to wait’. East Maitland pensioner Laurice Seigers—and her husband, Fred—in an article in today’s Maitland Mercury says:

I think an increase is necessary.

I certainly find it a struggle. Every time I go grocery shopping things have gone up. We have to buy things that have been marked down.

The number of comments online is staggering. James has today posted on the Canberra Times site:

This is a one term government. Rudd’s arrogance in dismissing the needy will lose him re-election.

And in my home state of Western Australia on page 6 under the banner headline ‘Political tug-of-war halts $30 pension rise’ pensioner Denis Leigh says:

At the next election pensioners will revolt against the government for not raising it now. Another $30 a week is a hell of a lot of money for us. You feel frustrated.

And the government’s response to this is that our proposal is a political stunt. This is the government that stood here today in this chamber once again gloating about its $22 billion surplus. Responsibility for age pensioners lies with them. They are the government. They can make a change. Do something about the age pension. Increase it now. After all, it was Mr Rudd who said:

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

Where is he now? New York. Just another lot of spin and rhetoric.

Question agreed to.