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

The President has received a letter from Senator Bernardi proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:

The valuable contribution of age pensioners to the Australian community and the need for immediate financial relief for single age pensioners.

I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This motion has been carefully worded as we have spent a lot of time talking about the age pension but not quite so much time talking about the valuable contribution that many age pensioners have made. The contribution that today’s age pensioners have made has changed our country immeasurably. They have borne hardship. They have been to war on our behalf. They have raised their families. They have built businesses. They have toiled for the benefit of this nation—often without the benefit of superannuation and often without the benefit of significant government assistance during some very tough times in all of their lives—always hopeful and optimistic, as Australians are, that, when their time of need arose, their 65-plus years of contribution to our community would allow them some respite, a bit of peace and some time with their families. They were hopeful that the government would provide them with enough sustenance and enough of a contribution for them to sustain a quality of life as befits their service to our nation.

Unfortunately, this has been completely lost on the Rudd government. Under the previous coalition government the age pension increased above the CPI. It was indexed to the average wage, which resulted in over $2,183 of additional benefits than would have accrued to them previously through the age pension. With the cost of living rising stratospherically under the Rudd government, who have taken their eyes completely off the main game—which is looking after Australians, not trying to get a seat in the United Nations or talking about 2050 plans—the pensioners of Australia are struggling right now. They are struggling right now to feed themselves and to turn their heaters on in a very cold winter. They are struggling to put fuel in their cars and get down to the shops or to the RSL so they can play some cards or have a drink with their friends. They are struggling because this government will not do anything to help them.

Sure, I accept the fact that a couple of policies have been copied to help out with rising electricity rates, and I understand that the government claim to accept the parlous state that pensioners are in, because we have had some senior ministers say that they could not live on the age pension. ‘We understand. We have had inquiries that have reported about how they cannot make ends meet’—how they have been forced to live on bread and jam, because dripping is no longer available; it is too expensive under the Rudd government. But we have a simple strategy for this government to provide immediate relief for the pensioners of Australia and what is their response? No. They are retreating to the Constitution. It is the Dennis Denuto version of government: ‘It’s the vibe. We don’t think the Senate can do this.’ The Senate passes a bill and sends it to the lower house and the lower house says: ‘No, we are going to rely on the Dennis Denuto interpretation. The vibe is wrong and you are not allowed to do it.’ Well, let them introduce a bill of their own to provide immediate financial relief for pensioners, because they need it now, they need it today—and they deserve it, quite frankly.

I know there are many agitators on the Labor backbench who are too frightened to speak up. They are too frightened to speak up because, in the Labor Party, when you speak up, you get your head chopped off. You get thrown out if you cross the floor. But they need to cross the floor. They need to put their pride on the line here to support Australia’s pensioners, because to do anything less is to turn their backs on those that most need it. We are a lucky country and they are a very lucky government because they inherited a massive surplus, the largest surplus I can recall at close to $23 billion. They have $23 billion in surplus and yet there is not enough money to make sure that those who are amongst the most vulnerable and needy in our society can actually get it.

If you need any evidence that this is a government more interested in spin than substance you only have to go to documents provided under the Freedom of Information Act, in which the Treasury has written to Mr Swan, Mr Bowen and Senator Sherry on the adequacy of government support for people of age pension age. This Treasury note of 11 pages noted that the age pension and additional financial payments for seniors had increased substantially in real terms under the coalition government. It notes that, and yet here we have the Leader of the Government in the Senate just yesterday saying that no action had been taken under the coalition. This is a government that really does not know what it is saying. It does not appreciate just how painful its callous words—the stake that it is driving through heart of the people who have toiled to build this country—really are. When you have the Leader of the Government in the Senate saying that the coalition did nothing and yet the Treasury note demonstrates something else, it is really very sad.

The Treasury note goes on to say that some people are genuinely experiencing cost-of-living pressures. This has been borne out by Senate committee after Senate committee. We know this, because the evidence is there for every single person to see. But there are none so blind as those that will not see. The blindness, unfortunately, resides on the government side. If Mr Rudd himself decreed from above—because he is the emperor that runs the Labor Party and the government and they will not act without Mr Rudd—‘I want the pensioners to have a $30 a week pay rise,’ it would happen, and it would happen with the support of the coalition. It would happen, I presume, with the support of the crossbenches and with the support of the Greens. But, no, it does not happen.

And when we are debating this, where does Mr Rudd go? Overseas. He is missing in action, like this government has been missing in action on the needs of so many Australians. But the problem we have is that it sets a terrible precedent whereby the coalition will continue to advocate and the government will continue to turn their backs on the people who need it most. It is not good enough. The coalition have been pursuing this issue with all seriousness and genuineness because we actually care about people. It is not just about dollars and cents. That is important—of course dollars and cents are important and we need to make sure there is a surplus, and we need to make sure there is good financial management—but, gosh, what good is good financial management if you are turning your back on the very people who have been paying off Labor’s debt during the coalition government? These people were paying taxes. We supported them because they were helping us to get over Labor’s poor management of the economy. Labor are now so hamstrung trying to prove their fiscal rectitude that they are turning their backs on the very reason governments exist: to take care of those who need help and need support.

There are lots of things that governments have to do, but there are also things that governments should do. This government, unfortunately, has its priorities completely wrong. It is a shame to say it: while we are talking about pensioners not having enough food to eat and $30 pay rises, the Labor Party in the other house are talking about the size of the beef stroganoff. It is a disgrace. Every single Australian should be embarrassed about what is happening in the other house. They were presented with a bill that was a fait accompli. The only thing they had to do was introduce it, yet they hid behind apparent legal advice.

I do not think the vibe works in the Senate or in the Australian parliament. It is not appropriate to invoke the Dennis Denuto defence—Dennis Denuto, that famed lawyer from The Castle, the man that we all love and think is fantastic—that it is the vibe that is going to prevent us from doing it. The only thing they have to do is grab this bill and bring it into the House. Let them initiate their own bill. We don’t care; we will support it. We will support their $30 a week pay rise or their $35 a week pay rise, if that is what they want to do. For goodness sake, even $20 a week would provide some relief for these poor people who are doing it really, really tough. But what do the government do? Nothing. They play the spin cycle. It is a shame and a tragedy. We will continue to raise this issue and many other issues, because that is what we are here for. We are here to stand up for people, to put people before politics. Unfortunately, the Rudd Labor government simply put the politics and the spin of politics and the appearance of action ahead of people’s needs. It is not good enough, it is not what they were elected to do, and at the next election I know that the people of Australia will say: ‘Enough is enough. Goodbye. Thank you, Mr Rudd.’ (Time expired)

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

It is a pleasure to rise and address the Senate on the issue of pensions. Senator Bernardi, in proposing this matter for discussion, has brought to this place all of the eloquence and wit that his hero, Dennis Denuto, brought to the High Court in The Castle. Pensions are such a critical issue for the coalition that we can see that they have come here in force today to make their argument in this place!

Senator Bernardi’s proposal raises some interesting questions. When did the need for financial relief for single age pensioners become urgent? If it is urgent now, this year, why was it not urgent last year? Why was it not urgent in 2006? Senator Bernardi has been a member of this Senate since May 2006, so of course it is fair and reasonable to ask: how many times did Senator Bernardi speak in the Senate on the plight of pensioners in 2006? Not once. How many times did Senator Bernardi speak in the Senate on the plight of pensioners in 2007? Not once. Since Senator Bernardi entered the Senate there have been three budgets—two under the Howard government and one under the Rudd government. What did Senator Bernardi say about the failure of the Howard government to meet the need for immediate financial relief for single age pensioners in 2006 or 2007? Not a single word—not an utterance. Senator Bernardi did not speak on the 2006 or 2007 budget bills. In his speech on the 2008 budget he did not mention pensioners once.

Of course, I do not wish to hold Senator Bernardi solely responsible for the blatant hypocrisy displayed in his proposal today. He is only doing the bidding of his frontbench, who, in turn, are echoing the line being taken by the coalition leadership in the other place. But there is no disguising that this is a cheap, hypocritical populism being dreamt up by the Liberal Party. Of course, it was the creature of the failed former opposition leader, Dr Nelson, who has bequeathed this foolish strategy to his successor, Malcolm Turnbull, and his loyal acolytes in this place. Mr Turnbull’s regard for pensioners has of course been a hallmark of his career—at the bar, in the IT business or in merchant banking! We know what this is all about.

That banal, unemotional delivery by Senator Bernardi reveals the truth. This is a piece of political positioning by the Liberal Party. It is a new opposition fumbling about, trying to find for itself a purpose, a role. It is in the business of trying to find a new position from which to declare itself to the Australian people, but what a foolish attempt it is now for the Liberal Party to try to reinvent itself as the party of compassion. This is a trajectory that will no doubt have the same success as Costello’s book sales. This is not going to work, because you are not the party of compassion; you have spent 12 years in office proving to all and sundry that you are not the party of compassion and you are not going to so quickly change your disguise from your efforts of the Howard legacy.

Senator Bernardi and his colleagues demonstrate through this proposal that they are not immune to the Liberal Party’s voyage of self-discovery that is underway at the moment as they try to search for the socialist heart they believe beats somewhere deep inside the Liberal Party. Keep searching, Senator Bernardi—you will not find it. This is a repositioning by the Liberal Party. They are in opposition; we all understand they have to engage in some repositioning. But what a poor choice, because it is politically implausible.

I have here a list of the new opposition shadow ministry. Let us go through this list and see how much the coalition frontbenchers in this place have done to meet what the proposal says is the need for immediate financial relief for single age pensioners. When Mr Brough, then the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, took a submission last year to cabinet seeking an increase in the base rate of the age pension, how much support did he get from his colleagues in the Senate? I might take this opportunity to thank the former member, Mr Brough, for his honesty in revealing the absolute depths of hypocrisy to which those Liberal Party strategists have plumbed in trying to reinvent themselves as champions of the pensioners.

We all know what is going on here. Somewhere, deep in the heart of the Liberal Party strategic team, they have rediscovered the need to find the grey vote. Someone in the Liberal Party, in analysing the entrails of their catastrophic 2007, has said, ‘We need to rediscover the grey vote.’ My only advice to you, Senator Bernardi, would have been to try to come up with a more plausible plan—something that did not reek of the hypocrisy and the crocodile tears that you are forcing us all to endure at the moment.

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

Senator, your remarks should be directed through the chair.

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

I apologise, Acting Deputy President. Senator Minchin is the champion of conservatism in this place, notwithstanding the fact that we are now in the ‘time of the moderates’, as one Liberal insider revealed recently. Senator Minchin is familiar with these moderates. Chris Pyne is another champion of the moderates. We all remember Chris Pyne in office, don’t we? He was too young to be the minister for ageing. Let us now hope that he is not too smart to be the shadow minister for education.

Senator Minchin, Senator Coonan and Senator Ellison were members of the cabinet that knocked back Mr Brough’s submission. Senator Ellison is no longer on the front bench, but Senator Minchin and Senator Coonan most certainly are. Day in and day out they have now sought to lecture us about the plight of age pensioners—this new discovery of theirs. Since he was the Minister for Finance and Administration at the relevant time, did Senator Minchin support Mal Brough’s submission? It does not seem very likely that he did. If I am wrong about that, let him come in here and explain it to us. Did Senator Coonan support Mr Brough’s submission? I do not know. But I think it is now time for her to tell us. Senator Ellison was Minister for Human Services at the relevant time. He would have had first-hand knowledge of the position of age pensioners. Perhaps he supported Mal Brough’s submission to the cabinet. But the fact of the matter is that they were all silent. They have discovered age pensioners and they have discovered these issues only in their cynical search for political recovery. That is apparent to all of us. That was apparent to all of us from the moment this farce began. The only thing that they do not understand is that it is also apparent to pensioners.

Whatever the position taken by these senators, the fact is that the Howard cabinet rejected Mr Brough’s submission. The Howard government, after 15 years of continuous economic growth and at a time when, Prime Minister Howard told us, the Australian people had ‘never had it so good’, decided not to increase the base rate of the pension. No-one resigned from the cabinet in protest and, as I have already detailed, Senator Bernardi remained mute.

The fact of the matter is that the cost of increasing the base rate of the age pension for the 980,000 single age pensioners by $30 a week is some $1.5 billion a year. The Labor Party and the Rudd Labor government understand the plight of pensioners and, unlike those opposite, for us this is not a new discovery, a facade or a political stratagem. For us it is a matter of principle, of policy and, I might say, of action. Those on this side absolutely and, I might say, contemptuously dismiss the claims of those opposite to be motivated by concerns for age pensioners. They are not. This is a bogus populist campaign, poorly conceived and executed. It will lead them nowhere. It is designed to distract attention from their own dismal record of failure and irrelevance, a record built on top of a record in office of ignoring pensioners. Last November the Australian people rejected them and their policies, particularly their harsh, extreme and unjust treatment of Australian working families. Those opposite then elected a leader who completely failed to connect with the Australian public, and now we have to endure this farce. We on this side know that the situation of Australia’s age pensioners is a tough one, just as it was 18 months ago. (Time expired)

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

I support both components of this motion: to recognise the valuable contribution of age pensioners to the Australian community and also to recognise the need for immediate financial relief for single age pensioners. On the first matter, I would join with every member of this parliament in recognising that age pensioners are making and have made a valuable contribution to our nation. In fact, we all know that we would not be one of the wealthiest, healthiest, happiest and most ‘easy to live in’ nations on the face of the planet if it were not for the lifetime of contribution that age pensioners have given to both their families and their communities in making Australia what I think all of us would agree is the most liveable place anywhere in the world. It is very important that that ongoing contribution of pensioners be recognised as this motion puts it.

Then we move to the need for immediate financial relief for single age pensioners—and, I would add to that, for all pensioners and carers in this country. They are in very difficult circumstances. We have had the plight of pensioners canvassed in the parliament over the last couple of weeks—and, indeed, from the Greens in the Senate for several years now in our campaign to have the pension increased. Let me refer to a single letter from a pensioner who would now be 80:

This may help you with the old pension bid—

that is, to improve the pensions—

Mr Brown. It is all very well to worry about the groceries, and we have to worry about groceries—

a little bit of humour here—

and which ones we don’t buy—’Oh, I can’t afford this and I can’t afford that either.’ It is approximately $150 a week more if I have to have soap powder, soap, bleach, etc, etc.

This is all in the citizen’s own handwriting. The letter continues:

Then there’s the vegetables and the fruit and, on top of that, the petrol and the tyres. No meat—I can’t afford that. No entertainment—that’s out altogether. Groceries approximately $150 a week. Newspapers, Telstra, car insurance, the power bills—

government has given some relief there in the last year—

operation on eyes ...

That item comes in at $2,680 twice, so that comes to more than $5,000, and this is somebody getting less than $15,000 a year. So, in one smack, there is a third of that person’s income gone. We have heard in here about people who are having 40, 50, 60 or, on one occasion, 80 per cent of their pension taken in rental. There are 100,000 people on single age pensions in this country living on $20 or less a day. Take out a $20 note in the morning and think about the cost of providing meals, shelter and accommodation—sorry, not shelter, because the rental is paid. Think about the cost of providing health care, transport, the newspaper—you would have to think about that—and so on. It is a very tough position indeed, and we ought to be acting to alleviate that while the government moves, if it so wills, to come to a final decision on increasing pensions by next year’s budget.

The work by the opposition and the crossbench in this parliament, in the last several weeks, is to provide immediate relief. And that is the matter that has been causing so much contention. On that matter, the coalition’s bill to give an increase of $30 to single age pensioners and veteran pensioners passed the Senate and went to the House of Representatives yesterday. There we saw the government not only refuse to debate the bill—to have a debate about a matter of quite urgent importance to this nation—but gag that debate on the basis that it was not constitutional.

What the government was saying is that if the Senate passes a bill and takes it to the House then it is up to the House to judge whether the behaviour of the Senate is constitutional or not. I submit that that is a very dangerous precedent and judgement for the House to be making. I submit that it is an outrageous abuse of the proper respect that parliamentary houses should have for each, under not only the Constitution but also the standing orders of both houses. It is effectively the government ignoring the Senate in much the same way as it is ignoring 1.2 million age pensioners in this country.

The worthy Clerk of the Senate, Harry Evans, wrote to Senator Minchin on 15 September pointing out the legitimacy of the coalition’s bill, and that has been canvassed by a number of speakers in this place. It was information available to the House. However, the Clerk of the House thought differently, and the government said, ‘This is an unconstitutional bill in the House; we won’t deal with it,’ and then gagged debate. I am now in receipt of a comment from the Clerk of the Senate with information about what led to that situation in the House yesterday. The Clerk says:

When the bill was received in the House of Representatives, the government did not allow the bill to be considered, on the basis of its alleged constitutional defectiveness.

A statement by the Speaker, referring to bills which increase payments from standing appropriations, claimed that “the practice has been that such bills originate in the House”, while a motion moved by the government stated that such a bill “should be introduced in the House of Representatives” and that “it is not in accordance with the constitutional provisions ..... as they have been applied in the House for such a measure to have originated in the Senate”.

Mr Evans says:

Unfortunately, debate on this motion was “gagged”, so there was no explanation or analysis of it. The House was not allowed to debate a matter supposedly affecting its own powers.

What an extraordinary way for a government of this nation to behave in the house of government—to not allow the powers of the House, let alone the right of the Senate to pass its legislation, to even be debated on the floor of the parliament. And it is a Labor government, at that! The Clerk goes on to cite a number of examples where such legislation has come from the Senate before, stating:

... there is no shortage of examples of government bills exactly the same in principle as the Urgent Relief for Single Age Pensioners Bill which were initiated in the Senate.

Speaking of the House of Representatives, he went on to say:

Multiplying past examples demonstrates that either government advisers were negligent about the bills which could be initiated in the Senate according to the doctrine now expounded, or the doctrine was raised to cover the situation in relation to the current bill.

That is, the pensions bill.

I suggest that the latter is the case.

I seek leave to incorporate the whole of this letter from the Clerk into the Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows—

24 September 2008

Senator Bob Brown

Leader of the Australian Greens

The Senate

Parliament House

CANBERRA  ACT  2600

Dear Senator Brown

URGENT RELIEF FOR SINGLE AGE PENSIONERS BILL

This note is further to the advice already provided on this bill.

When the bill was received in the House of Representatives, the government did not allow the bill to be considered, on the basis of its alleged constitutional defectiveness.

A statement by the Speaker, referring to bills which increase payments from standing appropriations, claimed that “the practice has been that such bills originate in the House”, while a motion moved by the government stated that such a bill “should be introduced in the House of Representatives” and that “it is not in accordance with the constitutional provisions ….. as they have been applied in the House for such a measure to have originated in the Senate”.

Unfortunately, debate on this motion was “gagged”, so there was no explanation or analysis of it.  The House was not allowed to debate a matter supposedly affecting its own powers.

It appears that these statements draw a distinction between bills which result in expenditure from a standing appropriation and bills which otherwise result in expenditure from appropriations made elsewhere.

My note of 15 September 2008 referred to bills “which involve increased expenditure from appropriations which have already been made, or will be made in the future”, and which “are commonly introduced in the Senate”.  Bills involving expenditure from standing appropriations fall into that category, but so do other bills involving increased expenditure.  There is no difference in principle between those types of bills in this category, and no basis for distinguishing bills increasing expenditure from standing appropriations from bills involving expenditure from other appropriations.  If a bill causing expenditure from standing appropriations is to be treated as a bill appropriating money within the meaning of section 53 of the Constitution, bills involving expenditure from other appropriations would have to be treated in the same way.  Once section 53 is regarded as rubbery and is extended beyond bills which actually appropriate money, there is no end to how far it will extend.

For example, late last year there was a bill passed which had been initiated in the Senate, the Aviation Legislation Amendment (2007 Measures No. 1) Bill 2007, and which, according to the explanatory memorandum, involved increased expenditure of $3 million per year.  This was not from a standing appropriation, but from money regularly appropriated for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, but on the rubbery extension of section 53, this bill, and many others, would be caught.

Leaving that issue aside, there is no shortage of examples of government bills exactly the same in principle as the Urgent Relief for Single Age Pensioners Bill which were initiated in the Senate. 

My note of 15 September referred to the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2007.  An attempt has been made to distinguish this bill, seemingly on the basis that it might not necessarily have led to increased expenditure. The fact is that that bill created an entitlement to pharmaceutical benefits which did not exist before, in respect of prescriptions issued by optometrists, and authorised expenditure to fund that entitlement from the standing appropriation in the principal Act.  It falls squarely within the category now said to be impermissible for initiation in the Senate.

Further examples may be cited.  The Health and Ageing Legislation Amendment Bill 2003 also created new entitlements payable from standing appropriations under the principal legislation, in respect of pharmacists operating from premises previously not approved, and medical practitioners previously not recognised as specialists.  Both entitlements increased expenditure out of the standing appropriations.

The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Concession Cards) Bill 2000 was not only initiated in the Senate but amended in the Senate to extend entitlements under the legislation, in relation to foster care children issued with their own health care card.  Again, the new entitlement was funded from the standing appropriation.

Multiplying past examples demonstrates that either government advisers were negligent about the bills which could be initiated in the Senate according to the doctrine now expounded, or the doctrine was raised to cover the situation in relation to the current bill.  I suggest that the latter is the case.

A great many red herrings have been dragged across the path by the material presented in the House of Representatives.  One relates to a proposal by the Senate Procedure Committee in 1996 that section 53 be reinterpreted so as to classify the kinds of bills under discussion here as appropriation bills able to be initiated only in the House of Representatives.  That proposal was contingent on clauses being included in such bills explicitly acknowledging that they appropriate money.  This proposal was not accepted at the time, and indeed was not considered.  It cannot now be raised to support an ad hoc unilateral reinterpretation of section 53 while ignoring an essential part of the proposal.

Reference to the ability of the Houses to agree on an interpretation of section 53 raises a final point. Contrary to suggestions which have been made, it is well established, by the words of the High Court itself, that section 53 is non-judiciable and cannot be the subject of interpretation and adjudication by the Court.  It is for the Houses themselves to interpret and apply the section.  It is unfortunate that the House of Representatives is not given the freedom to consider any such agreement.

Yours sincerely

(Harry Evans)

I thank the Senate. I believe that this is an extremely serious matter which should have been debated in the House and which, no doubt, will lead to a great deal of constitutional debate outside the parliament, because it has been prohibited from debate in the House by the Rudd Labor government. It will be left to be debated outside the parliament for a long time to come, but it is a quite worrying precedent. If this is a backdoor move by Prime Minister Rudd and/or his government to try to trammel the Senate, it is bound for a lot more trouble than we have seen so far. (Time expired)

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to support Senator Bernardi’s proposal lauding the contribution that has been made to our society by pensioners, particularly age pensioners, and the need to assist all pensioners immediately, in particular single pensioners. I will explain why I think that is the case shortly. I do not think Senator Brown should be surprised at all by the extraordinary behaviour of the Rudd government to stifle debate and to stifle action on the part of this parliament. I think it is just part of the form of this government.

Pensioners should be a treasured and respected part of our community. They are the parents of our generation and grandparents—and often carers, as grandparents—and they have contributed significantly to the great prosperity of this country, as Senator Bernardi pointed out. Now in their later years, they are very much the backbone of our community organisations. They are the majority of our volunteers. They are the people who hold our society together. They contribute billions of dollars worth of unpaid hours to keeping our society functional—or at least they were when they could afford to be.

We introduced a bill into the Senate to give single age pensioners, single service age pensioners and widow B pensioners a $30 increase in their pensions, and the Senate—which apparently has far more compassion and moral fibre, I suggest, than the House of Reps—passed this bill. It went on to the House for debate. One would have thought that the House would have relished the chance to at least have their say on this suggestion to increase these pensions by $30 a week, but the government, in their mean-spirited wisdom, completely stifled debate—not just debate on this move but debate on the constitutionality of this and the right of the Senate to propose this. The government stomped on any opportunity for their members to represent their constituents. They would not even talk about it. They used legalese to not talk about something that affects hundreds of thousands of people in Australia every day—now. I have previously characterised the Rudd Labor government as the ‘empathise and ignore’ government, but I think we can now call them the ‘empathise and stifle’ government.

There is only one answer in the Rudd government toolbox—that is more reviews and more inquiries. I think Prime Minister Rudd has reduced the prime ministership of this country to that of public servant in chief. He confuses reports with reforms. He confuses inquiries with real help. The way that our age pensioners are being treated now is testament to what we are not doing as a nation—how we are not treating well and not respecting our most vulnerable. I think every inquiry we have had on this matter has made the point that single female age pensioners are the most vulnerable, especially the ones who live in rented accommodation.

The Australian Catholic Social Justice Council recently built on their definition of poverty from 1996. I thought this was worth reading out so that people can contemplate how much of this applies right now to our pensioners. The Catholic Social Justice Council’s definition of being poor is:

• To have inadequate access to resources and services.
• To be unable to do certain tasks that are essential for fulfilling one’s human potential and carrying out one’s social responsibilities.
• To be shunned, denigrated, blamed, patronised and ostracised by others.
• To have little opportunity to participate in decisions affecting one’s life.
• To be, and to feel, powerless, excluded, marginalised, … to live ‘in exile’ in one’s own society.

Now, let us keep those criteria in mind. A few weeks ago, I spoke on the cost-of-living problems being experienced by pensioners and mentioned some of the comments that pensioners had written in letters to my office. Many commented that they could no longer afford the petrol to get to volunteer activities and they could no longer afford to be involved in social activities. One that stayed with me from the almost 800 letters that I received said: ‘I can’t afford to buy new clothes or shoes that are badly needed. I do not have any superannuation or a car or a house, only a pension. I cannot even afford to die, because I cannot afford a funeral.’ Thank goodness there is a little bit of the Australian sense of humour left in these people, because that is all they have got now.

In terms of the contribution of pensioners, cruelly ignored by the Rudd Labor government, I guess I cannot do much better than pass on the comments of an RSL club secretary who recently rang about the availability of flags for veterans’ funerals. He said: ‘Most of our servicemen served in World War II. These days, some weeks we have three funerals.’ These are the people we are talking about; that was their contribution—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Shame!

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and the government’s reaction is, as Senator Bernardi points out, a shame. This government will not even talk about it. We have had Senator Feeney discussing hypocrisy and poor choices. I think perhaps, Senator Feeney, what the pensioners of Australia are starting to realise is that the worst choice, the poorest choice, they made was in November last year. And the Labor Party—

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

Senator Boyce, I remind you that your comments must be through the chair.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry, Madam Acting Deputy President. The Labor Party, of which Senator Feeney is probably the most recent representative, attempt to suggest that our government did nothing for pensioners. They know that is false, but they continue to try to rewrite history. Let me just remind Senator Feeney and others of what we did do. We introduced the indexation of pensions not just to CPI but also to MTAWE, male total average weekly earnings, whichever was higher. This meant that single pensioners were more than $36 a week—directly into their pockets—better off than they would have been under the system that used just CPI. Under our government, wages went up and the economy was robust, but pensioners also benefited from that prosperity. It was a reasonable recognition of a real contribution. We also introduced utilities allowances, the seniors concessions allowance, bonuses of $1,000 a year to meet household bills and the Pension Bonus Scheme, in 1998. So to say that we did nothing is an outright lie.

This government needs to find its compassion. It suggests that what we were trying to do was unconstitutional. Stop being hypocritical. You are the government; you can act. Introduce this legislation now. Stop reviewing, and act to assist people who genuinely need assistance. (Time expired)

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor understand the pressure that pensioners are under, especially age pensioners. Providing a basic standard of living for those not able to support themselves is a core Labor value and a key principle of the income support system, because every citizen should be able to meet their basic needs and participate in Australian society. We recognise that rising food and petrol prices and the cost of heating and other utilities can determine whether or not Australians are able to live in comfort and dignity and remain active in their communities, particularly when they are surviving on fixed incomes. That is why last year, when in opposition, Labor initiated the Senate inquiry into the cost-of-living pressures on older Australians—because we understood that seniors were doing it tough.

We are intent on properly addressing 11 years of coalition neglect, giving pensioners dignity in their everyday life. The unsustainable position that pensioners are in today is a problem created by those opposite, who did nothing to fix the problem in 11 long years of government. In contrast, immediately on coming to power, Labor acknowledged the problem and took responsibility for doing something about it. We recognised the needs of pensioners in our very first budget with a substantial increase in the utilities payment. It is not appropriate to fiddle with the base rate of the pension without looking at the issues as a whole. For example, we have just had a claim that the Liberals fixed the pension to average male weekly earnings. What happens to that benchmark once you fiddle with it by adding the extra $30?

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

It goes up! That’s what happens.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it will, but what happens to that policy in the future when you do not have a robust policy setting? It may well mean that pensioners go backwards. It is not appropriate to fiddle with the base rate of the pension without looking at the issues as a whole. With a flat increase, not everyone will be better off. That is too simplistic a way to look at the issues. I would like to highlight to the Senate today some of the complexities behind this—issues the coalition never dealt with.

We have known for a long time that many pensioners are struggling to get by on the base pension rate, particularly single women—who have worked hard all their lives, raised families but have little or no superannuation. As the cost of living rises, we know they are finding it harder to make ends meet, particularly if they are renting their home. Labor recognise that the recent practice of simply paying one-off bonuses to carers and seniors when the budget allows, though better than nothing, has created huge uncertainty for pensioners. The former government’s repeated unconscionable practice of not providing for these payments in the forward estimates left pensioners with no financial security.

Importantly, this is a problem this government has rectified in its forward estimates, with big increases to the amounts paid. In other words, those opposite never budgeted for real increases in the pension. The Labor government, in contrast, are committed to developing a reliable, long-term system to support aged pensioners, not perpetuating the short-term quick-fix ways of the past. In the interim we are paying seniors and carers a bonus valued at $1.8 billion. There are differing views about how assistance to seniors and carers should best be paid and how current arrangements should best be adjusted for the future. We have paid the bonuses this year to give our carers and seniors assistance while we work with them to answer these questions.

The constant political grandstanding of those opposite does not alter the fact that these issues are more complex than they appear. The government want to address this properly so that pensioners can live with dignity. The Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs highlighted in its report A decent quality of life: inquiry into the cost-of-living pressures on older Australians the importance of doing the job properly. It also highlights that the adequacy of pension and superannuation levels, the indexations arrangements for government benefits and the payment of concessions all substantially impact on the ability of older people to deal with cost-of-living pressures. The report noted that the most at risk are single pensioners, especially women receiving the full pension rate. Older people with severe disabilities or chronic illness and those in residential aged care are also particularly sensitive to cost-of-living increases. These issues are well understood by pensioners.

As highlighted, the federal government recently held consultations with pensioners in Western Australia about these issues. As part of this review, we are getting out there and talking to pensioners about their day-to-day problems, their cost-of-living pressures and the problems in the system. Some of the issues raised by pensioners included issues around assets tests and whether they are set at realistic levels; how pensions are taxed; the high effective marginal tax rate for pensions when people undertake extra work; how people who want to do some work feel discouraged from doing so; the fact that, for disability pensioners, the grants and rebates do not cover the kinds of equipment that people need; and the fact that the current system does not cater for the extra costs associated with having a disability once you turn 65 because people are taken off the disability pension when they turn 65.

What if you are a person with a disability? The fact that people have the choice about whether they want a carers payment or an age pension confuses the situation further. People who would otherwise be eligible for an age pension could opt for a carers pension instead. Did you even know that? In doing that, you have just cut out all those carers from the pension increase. It just goes to show that you cannot do this unless you do it properly.

People struggle to do the complicated maths about whether they will be better off under one or the other because of the lack of consistency between the two. For example, with carers pension you get some lump sum assistance but no seniors concessions. There you can see the simple difficulty you are putting people into. There is also the problem of concessions and rebates. These are massively inconsistent between states. Did you also know that hardships rules vary between age and disability pensions?

Yes, giving people more money is vital, but if the things said by WA pensioners are to be believed, that is not the whole problem. They said, ‘The system is confusing. We struggle to make sense of what options give us the best financial support.’ And, yes, they said, ‘We’re concerned about making mistakes and owing money. Yes, we need more money, but we also need the system to be simplified and work better for us.’ This shows that there is an urgent need to do this properly. A simple increase in the base rate for single pensioners will leave carers behind, it will do little to help those in residential aged care and it will do little to address those struggling with chronic illness.

During the last decade, the needs of pensioners were neglected. For too long those opposite raised expectations that something would be done but offered only bandaid solutions—solutions that were not budgeted for from one year to the next. It is cruel to raise expectations in this way. It is cruel to mess around with payments without committing to long-term solutions, and the coalition are still at it. They are still raising expectations that they have no capacity to meet. They are still offering up stopgap solutions as substitutions for sustainable solutions.

This government has more heart than that. This government is committed to finding real solutions to the problem of providing adequate assistance to aged pensioners. The valuable contribution of aged pensioners should be recognised with real, budgeted and sustainable solutions for the long term—solutions age pensioners can rely on into the future.

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

Labor have run through the entire gamut of excuses as to why they should not support immediate relief for Australian pensioners. We have heard just about everything. Earlier this week we were told that it was constitutionally impossible to pass a bill to provide pensioners with $30 a week. Today we have heard that the system of paying pensions is very confusing and that you cannot just give people money because it is a bandaid solution, so you cannot adopt this idea of giving people $30 a week to solve an immediate, real problem. We have heard that nothing is required at this point in time because the Liberals did not do anything about this problem. The unstated part of the argument is, ‘Therefore, we are entitled to do nothing about it as well for quite some time.’

Now we have had the extraordinary contribution from Senator Pratt to this debate that, if you give pensioners $30 a week, they might go backwards. I am confident that if I rolled into a senior citizens club in this town or went to an aged-care facility and said to people, ‘Would you like to give go backwards to the tune of $30 extra a week?’ they would say, ‘Yes, we will take our chances, thank you.’ Hands would go up for going backwards. I do not know where those arguments were cooked up, but they do not hold a lot of water.

Let me put this simple proposition to those opposite: if you think that there is more work to be done on this question, some sort of review of the kind that you have specialised in since coming to office nine months ago, by all means go ahead and do that review and work out what you think is the right solution for a long-term problem. But, at the same time, honour what you said in this place and elsewhere this time last year when you initiated the inquiry of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs into the living standards of older Australians and do something immediately to address the real problems that older Australians are facing now. The two courses of action are not inconsistent. There is no way that adding $30 into the pockets of aged pensioners in Australia is going to detract from a longer term review of how you structure pensions in this country. The two are perfectly capable of sitting together. I would suggest that that would keep faith with the urgency with which you people approached this issue only this time last year. A lot changes when you cross the floor, go onto the other side and take the Treasury benches, but the urgency and immediacy of that issue seemed to magically disappear in the course of that transition.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What did you do in 12 years? Nothing.

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

Senator Arbib has interjected that we have done nothing in the last 12 years. Senator Arbib, I appreciate that that is the line you have to run because you have been told that that is the corporate line.

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

Senator Humphries, please direct your comments through the chair.

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

Through you, Madam Acting Deputy President, I appreciate that that is what they have all been told to say. It sounds really good for the listeners at home who, if they are not pensioners, perhaps would not know what has happened in the course of the last 12 years. But the fact is that that line is simply not true; it is a myth.

This coalition was responsible for probably the most significant lift in the real value of pensions that we have seen since the pension system was introduced decades ago. For example, to mention only one of the initiatives that the coalition took in government, had we not indexed pensions by reference to MTAWE as well as the CPI, pensions today would not be around $273 per week for single pensioners; they would be just on $200 a week. That was the difference that our decision made. Are you telling me that that was not real action? Are you telling me that those pensioners did not benefit from an extra $73 per week? Of course they did. It made a real difference to those people—as did our decisions to change the income test withdrawal rate for pensioners earning money on top of their pension, to introduce a utilities allowance in 2005 and to modify the assets test taper rate in 2007 to allow people to have more assets and still receive a pension. All of those things made a real difference to pensioners. Were they enough? Clearly, in light of the present evidence about the pressures on older Australians, they were not.

I would ask members of this place to look outside the square in which they are operating at the moment and consider what people in this community who are doing it tough might think about the debate we are having today. Would they be impressed with our arguments about the constitutional validity of this motion or the potential for it to confuse the review of some other government program taking place in the bowels of the Treasury? No, I do not think they would be impressed by that at all; they would be impressed by action.

I invite the Labor Party to share the passion that they had last year for doing something about the pressures facing older Australians—the sort of people who are cutting corners in their standard of living, the sort of people who are entering into reverse mortgages to effectively borrow against the value of their homes in order to be able to take advantage of the capital in their homes to spend money on their standard of living today, the sort of people—

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

People like my mother.

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

Well, if you know about that, Senator Pratt, then support the action. Come over here, cross the floor and sit over here, and do something about it. It is within your power. Allow your colleagues in the other place to exercise a free vote about what they think. I am sure plenty of them have constituents who are pensioners who are telling them that $30 a week right now—forget how it would affect a review—would be very, very nice to have in their purse or wallet when they go to buy groceries or put petrol in their cars every week. That is the challenge I put out to you: share the sense of mission you had when you initiated that inquiry last year, when you said there was an urgent problem facing Australia, to deal justly with the standard of living of pensioners. If you do that then you will support the motion we put on the table today to actually make a difference to the lives and standard of living of older Australians.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would actually like to thank Senator Bernardi for moving this matter of public importance. I am glad he has put it on the record because it highlights the sheer hypocrisy and the cruel game that is underway on that side of the chamber. There is one thing that we all agree with: age pensioners have made and continue to make a significant and valuable contribution to the Australian community. These are people who have paid their taxes. They have worked hard for the country. They have gone to war; their spouses have sent their loved ones off to war for this country. They have lived through tough times. They have not benefited from the superannuation reforms that were brought in by the Keating government. It is for these reasons that pensioners do not deserve the treatment that they are getting from the other side of the chamber, because there is no doubt, from the speeches by Senator Bernardi and Senator Humphries and the speeches in the chamber, that this is nothing but a cruel hoax.

I have to say to Senator Bernardi, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that the wording of this MPI says it all. While the MPI recognises the valuable contribution of age pensioners, it only talks about immediate financial relief for single age pensioners. We are talking about the contribution of all pensioners, but the coalition will only provide a benefit to single pensioners. You have left out 2.2 million pensioners. We are talking about married pensioners, about carers, about people on disability benefits, about widows—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

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

Senator Humphries interjecting—

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Bernardi and Senator Humphries, could you just restrain yourself. You have already spoken. Let Senator Arbib speak in silence.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Acting Deputy President. These people—2.2 million people on pension support—have been forgotten by the Liberal Party, not mentioned today by Senator Bernardi, not mentioned by Senator Humphries, because they know and we all know that this is nothing but a hoax. It is nothing but a cheap stunt, and the architect of this stunt was none other than the member for Bradfield, who has plenty of form on stunts. Let us just think about his time in office and the stunts he pulled. Who can forget his memorable listening tour, when he spent his time on the jungle gym with the kids? Or when he jumped into a semitrailer a couple of weeks ago? His fuel excise cut was another stunt. The list is endless. This issue was drummed up to save his own political leadership. He was under pressure from the member for Higgins, Peter Costello. He was under pressure from the member for Wentworth. So he reverted to form and came up with a stunt.

What has amazed me in the past week is that the member for Wentworth has agreed to the charade. The member for Wentworth, who claims to be so in touch with Australian families, so in touch with pensioners, from his Point Piper base, has not seen through the stunt. In fact, he is adding to it. What he has shown is that he is cut from exactly the same fabric as the member for Bradfield; he is no different. While the personalities and the people change, the policies do not.

Listening to the speeches today about all the amazing things that the Liberal Party did in government over 12 years, I noticed that they tended to forget or gloss over some of the facts. Senator Humphries talked about the myth that Mal Brough had put forward a very similar proposal. It is not a myth, it is fact. He went to the cabinet and put forward a proposal for a $30 increase to the base rate for pensioners and he was knocked over. They did not support it, they did not believe in it: it was bad policy. So they knocked him over. They do not admit it now—now it is a myth; but it was a fact. It is amazing when they talk about their great commitment to seniors. Let us talk about the responsible shadow minister, Tony Abbott. Four days ago he was saying he wanted out of his portfolio. He did not want to have to deal with families and seniors and Indigenous people. He was more interested in getting into the main game. (Time expired)

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for this debate has expired.