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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Senator Evans) to questions without notice asked by Senators Humphries and Adams today, relating to pensions.

Referring to ‘answers’ might be an overly generous reference to what Senator Evans had to tell the Senate today about the government’s response to the plight of Australian pensioners. The minister declined to indicate whether the government would support the $30 a week increase which the opposition has placed very squarely on the agenda. He declined to indicate whether there would even be a response to the idea of a one-off payment to Australian pensioners who are facing immediate difficulties in light of a number of serious economic pressures. He was unable to enlighten the Senate in answer to the question from Senator Adams as to whether there was any information as to the number of Australian retired people who might be pushed towards collecting the pension or a part pension in light of deteriorating returns from share portfolios.

We have here a government which is somewhat ignorant about the extent of the plight facing Australian pensioners, has an attitude which is contumelious, even contemptuous, of Australian pensioners and the difficulties that they presently are facing. The government’s lack of interest, their lack of focus on making a difference to the financial position of these people is really very disturbing. In fact, Mr Deputy President, I think it behoves all of us in this place today to try and imagine what kind of pressures are being faced by these people and what uncertainty must confront them today as they look at what is unfolding about them. Consider their position over the last 12 months or so. They have seen real increases in the cost of the basics that they consume each day of the week. Grocery costs, the cost of rent or other financial costs associated with housing, and the costs of maintaining their houses have gone up, as has the cost of buying petrol to move about and to stay inside the community. All of those things have risen quite dramatically. We have seen of course other unfortunate economic messages being received by Australian pensioners, which must make them even more uncertain about where the future is heading.

Obviously in the past decisions were made, particularly by the former coalition government, to link Australian pensioner’s pensions with measures of indexation to provide them with some sort of security in these circumstances. The decision to link pensions to the expansion in the male total average weekly earnings was an important decision to provide some security for people who are living in retirement in this country. But those decisions do not, by themselves, provide enough of a barrier to these sorts of pressures to provide everybody with a sense of security. Everybody, of course, has a different financial position. That is why a $30 a week increase of the kind proposed by the coalition is an appropriate and fair response to the enormous pressures which Australians in retirement are facing today.

Of course we know that there are other kinds of pensioners, or kinds of retired Australians, who are under increasing and serious pressure. Those people who are living as self-funded retirees of course have had the sight in the last few weeks of their shareholdings, upon which many self-funded retirement packages are based, reduce in value. That is a matter of considerable concern. So it is with some relief that many people in this constituency, in the Australian Capital Territory, would have regarded the announcement yesterday by the Canberra Liberals that if elected at the election this coming Saturday they would be making a one-off payment of $500 to single age pensioners to relieve the position that they find themselves in. That would have been regarded as being very positive news by those people.

However, it needs to be asked why it has to be governments at the second tier of  Australian government who are stepping into the breach in these circumstances. It is of course primarily the Commonwealth government which should be providing for the income security of Australians in retirement, particularly those on pensions. It is a dismal condemnation of the performance—or lack of it—of the federal government at this time that state governments or state oppositions are now looking at providing additional support to those people who are on pensions to face the pressures and to deal with those issues in a proper and appropriate way. They at least understand that we owe something to these people and that these are Australians who are owed a great deal because of the wealth that they built for Australians of today. To not provide them with security in their retirement is a completely disgraceful sham.

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

I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate today. Once again, it is an opportunity to highlight the sheer hypocrisy and duplicity of those on the other side of the chamber. For Senator Humphries to actually raise this issue in relation to the ACT election, to try and politicise an issue as important as this in the middle of an ACT election, just shows what a cruel stunt this is. By doing that, Senator Humphries actually demeans the push that he has tried to make today. This is also a stunt that has been put forward by the member for Wentworth and the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull. He is following on from the Evel Knievel of Australian politics, Brendan Nelson—the man who came up with some of the greatest stunts we have seen in this parliament. We saw him in the truck driving around, we saw his fuel stunt and then he came up with his stunt on seniors. You may ask: how do we know that this is a stunt? Why is it a stunt? It is pretty clear: it is a stunt because in his policy he has left out two million pensioners. Two million pensioners have been left out of their plan. They talk about single pensioners. What about married pensioners? What about carers? What about pensioners with a disability? What about widows? There are two million people who miss out under the coalition’s plan for just a basic $30 increase, a figure that was not based on any science but simply plucked out of thin air. That is how we know that it is a stunt.

The government appreciates how important this issue is. We appreciate that seniors have made a contribution to this country. We appreciate that the population is ageing and that something needs to be done. That is why, in the 2008-09 budget, we did something. We took concrete action, and it amounts to an additional $5.2 billion over five years. This compares to $1.3 billion provided to seniors in the last Howard budget. The Rudd government has increased support for single age pensioners—on an individual basis—above and beyond their fortnightly payments by $900 this year. That is made up of a permanent increase in the utilities allowance from $107 per annum to $500 per annum and a $500 bonus, which amounts to a six per cent increase in single age pensioner income. On top of this we have also indexed it, with pensioners receiving a $9.10 per fortnight increase in March 2008 and a further increase of $15.30 in September 2008. That is concrete action from this side of the House and concrete action by the Rudd government.

Let us compare this to the coalition and to the Liberal Party. Senator Humphries has come in today and tried to use this issue, as I said, to score political points in the ACT election. What he forgets to say is that the Liberals and the Nationals were in government for 12 years. They had 12 years to do something about this issue. He forgets to talk about Mal Brough, who took to the cabinet a plan to increase the base rate of the pension by a similar amount. What happened? They knocked him over. Malcolm Turnbull was part of that. He sat at the cabinet table that opposed an increase for pensioners, opposed an increase to the base rate. He was there. How duplicitous of him now to come forward with it as his policy.

In fact, Malcolm Turnbull has form on this. Let us talk about his interview with Steve Price. We all remember what the shadow ageing minister, Margaret May, said to Steve Price on 16 May 2008. Price said:

Let me just be clear there, the opposition is now endorsing an increase in the base rate of the pension.

To which the shadow minister replied:

Yes. Absolutely.

That looks pretty clear cut to me. And what did Malcolm Turnbull say straight after?

We have not got a policy to raise the base rate of the pension.’

He said, ‘We have not got a policy.’ We all read in the Sunday Telegraph two weeks ago that Malcolm Turnbull said that he did not support Brendan Nelson’s plan. It is there. This is just sheer duplicity by the Liberal Party. They had 12 years to do something about this issue—12 years to help pensioners. There are two million pensioners who need that support now.

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

It is extraordinary to listen to what Senator Arbib has to say. I preface my comments today by saying that this is a man who is touting himself as a future cabinet minister. I fear for the future of the Rudd government if this is the talent that is going to be in the cabinet. Senator Arbib has said today that, because the coalition bill only seeks to redress disadvantage for age pensioners and only seeks to redress disadvantage for veterans, that is not good enough and so nothing should be done. If you cannot have all of the cake, according to Senator Arbib, you should have none. That is simply arrant nonsense, and it is from a contemptuous government.

This is a government without a heart. It is a government that is hopelessly out of touch with the needs of the people of Australia. The government is prepared to ignore the plight of the Australian senior. It is prepared to ignore the plight of the veterans who are struggling to make ends meet. It is prepared to ignore the very real demands that they have to be able to heat their homes, to put food on the table, to access their local community clubs and to volunteer in the community. They need funds to do that. Some people are doing it really tough. This is a government that admits that people cannot afford to live on the age pension—no-one in the government has been prepared to admit that they can—but still the government does nothing.

Where are their priorities? That is the question, because whilst Australians are suffering and doing it very tough, Senator Arbib, your leadership is flying overseas trying to create moral crises and is seeking audiences with people about climate change in moves that are going to put up the price of electricity in this country by 40 per cent—and they are still out there doing that. One leader talks at press conferences about how he has dialled all the leaders of countries all over the world. None of them ring him because they know he is quite insignificant, but he rings them all trying to say, ‘Look, I’m star-struck’, like a schoolgirl at a Miley Cyrus concert. I would say to you, Senator Arbib, not to look at Miley Cyrus but to look at Billy Ray Cyrus and the words that he penned—‘don’t break my heart, my achey-breakey heart’—because I tell you now that Australian pensioners’ hearts are broken. They have been broken by this government because you have promised so much and delivered so little. This is where the coalition has to pick up the mantle. We have drafted a bill which we have brought into this place, and it has got through here because people have supported it. The only people who do not support it and the only people who do not want to see some changes for pensioners leading to benefits are on the other side of the chamber, members of the Labor Party.

Senator Arbib comes in here with his canned notes—and he has been sent in here because he wants to be a cabinet minister—and he says, ‘Oh, look, we can’t do anything. We’ve only got a surplus of $23 billion and we’re not going to do anything until we get the reports.’ Let me tell you this, Mr Deputy President: if you give pensioners a $30 a week pension rise, that will help them to buy more. That will help to stimulate the Australian economy and that will help to grow our economy in a very difficult financial time. But what does the government do?

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

Senator Arbib interjecting—

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

It is still in denial about it all. It is a tragedy, one that is happening in our own backyard. It is a tragedy that this government is more focused on things such as spin, is more focused on its own media profile and is more focused on its members climbing the greasy pole to get into cabinet rather than helping pensioners through a crisis. Senator Arbib was just talking about a crisis; I heard him interject to that effect. There is a crisis at home. Yes, there is an economic crisis—we know that—but there is also a human crisis that is taking place under the noses of this very government, and there are none so blind as those who do not want to see.

Those opposite do not want to see. They admit it and then they wash their hands of it; they do the Pontius Pilate—‘No, it’s not our fault. We’re not going to have anything to do with it. It’s due to 12 years of inaction.’ That is arrant nonsense too, because for 12 years our coalition government did everything we possibly could and so pensions are markedly higher. We took a policy to the last election for pensions to better reflect the cost of living but unfortunately we were not able to enact that. But this government is full of inaction. It has not even got a policy to lighten the load of pensioners so as to see them do better. That is the tragedy of it. We have had enough talk, spin, symposiums, orchestrated media releases and things. We actually want to see some action for those in society that are really doing it tough. So it is very hard for me to sit here and listen to what the people on the other side have to say when they say, ‘Oh, we’re not going to do anything till next year.’ Next year will be too late. Pensioners need some help now. The government should get on with the job.

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

The government is happy to get on with the job. We have heard the word ‘pensions’ so many times in the last few months. Why are the senators opposite only prepared to talk about pensions now that they are in opposition? People on this side of the chamber were happy to talk about pensions while in opposition and are happy to talk about them while in government. We have got nothing to be defensive about. But those opposite, after 11 long years, do—and now you are trying to make up for lost time when you have got no power to do anything about it. Those on this side take responsibility. We understand the pressure that pensioners, especially age pensioners, are under, because a basic standard of living for those not able to support themselves is a key principle of the income support system. Every citizen should be able to meet their basic needs and to participate in Australian society.

This government is intent on properly addressing 11 years of coalition neglect. Pensioners deserve dignity in their everyday life. The unsustainable position that pensioners are in has been exacerbated by those opposite because they did not do anything in 11 long years of government. In contrast, Labor recognised the needs of pensioners in our very first budget when we substantially increased the utilities payment.

As the cost of living rises, people are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet. Today, in the current financial climate, we see that more than ever. This government takes the plight of pensioners very seriously. That is demonstrated by the quick action that the government has taken. You would have noted that in question time today it was said, as we are currently discussing, that it does take some time for financial markets to settle down in these current times of crisis. Notwithstanding that, there are people who have lost substantial amounts of income very quickly. My superannuation account has dropped by some $20,000 in the last year, with a proportion of that dropping rapidly in the last few weeks, so I know that those who are retired, are close to retiring or are at pension age will have lost vast sums of money on which they are currently dependent for deriving an income. So I think it is of vital significance to this debate that the government has already requested a system-wide update of customer records. This means that the new value of shares and other financial products is going to be automatically factored into determining an individual’s pension rate. In the meantime, pensioners really need to be encouraged to ask Centrelink to update their asset values at any time. I think this one act highlights very clearly the importance that the government places on managing our pensions system well.

These are complex issues. I do not think those opposite understand that. We can see from the financial crisis the number of different issues that can impact on the rate of pension that someone receives. There is a range of issues that the government is going to need to address. These include things like how pensions are taxed, the high effective marginal tax rates for pensioners when they undertake extra work, how people who want to do some work feel discouraged from doing so, the fact that the grants and rebates for disability pensioners do not cover the kinds of equipment that they need and the fact that the current system does not cater for the extra costs, once you turn 65, associated with having a disability, because you are automatically transferred from the disability pension to a seniors pension. There is also the fact that people currently have a choice about whether they want a carers payment or an aged-care pension. This causes a lot of confusion. This point was well addressed by Senator Arbib when he highlighted the way in which senators opposite want to give a pension increase to one cohort of people but not others, so if you are a single age pensioner you can have an increase but if you are a carer you cannot. In many cases these are the same people, so they have had to make a judgement call about whether they want to apply for a seniors pension or a carers pension. (Time expired)

Judith Adams (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of the answers given by Senator Evans this afternoon. Without doubt, pensioners in this country are finding it hard to make ends meet. They need more financial assistance to offer them some relief from rising petrol prices, rising rents, rising costs of pharmaceuticals and rising costs of tea and coffee. Yet Labor prefers to continue delaying the decision to provide our seniors with more financial assistance, despite the fact that both Mr Rudd and Mr Swan admitted that they could not survive on the single age pension.

The annoying part is that we have to wait until February when the Harmer report is to be handed down, and then maybe in the budget in May our pensioners will get some relief. Labor is denying pensioners urgent relief. Both Mr Rudd and Mr Swan have been all over the place on the pensions issue, giving promises one day only to take them back the day after. Australian pensioners now have no idea whether the government will support them in the future. Only last week, Mr Rudd hosed down expectations that older Australians could get an increase in their pensions in next year’s budget. Mr Rudd said that the federal government may not be able to afford extra payments now due to the effects of the global credit crisis.

I note in the West Australian today that the number of elderly people now going to the food bank and the soup kitchen has grown dramatically, and the number of young people who are unable to get accommodation has also increased over the last month. These issues, with the global credit crisis, are certainly starting to play havoc for those people who are really and truly battling insofar as their pensions are concerned. If the government is not going to do anything until next May, I just wonder how these people are going to exist and what can be done. This is why the opposition is doing its best to raise the issue with the government time and time again, so that they will finally, hopefully, take action.

The Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Mr Lindsay Tanner, backed Mr Rudd’s threat by saying to journalists last Thursday that ‘pension reform was just one of the issues on the table for the budget’ and that ‘the priority was steering the wider economy through the financial crisis’. Naturally, senior lobby groups were not happy with this announcement. Mr Tanner’s comments showed a great lack of understanding of how the economy works. He acknowledged this himself only today by stating that the government was actively considering spending part of the $26.6 billion budget surplus to stimulate the economy. Mr Tanner said that raising pensions would be one option. However he would not give details of exactly what is under consideration or when it would be put into action.

Mr Tanner was forced to make this announcement today after the Australia Institute published a discussion paper yesterday which stated that an immediate increase in the pension would be the right measure to deal with the global credit crisis. The Australia Institute said that pensions should be increased to boost the national economy giving it an immediate injection of cash. The Australia Institute also said:

Pensioners spend less money on imported cars and overseas holidays than higher income earners, which means that the money has a greater affect on the Australian economy.

It is interesting, is it not, that Mr Rudd and Mr Tanner said last week that they would probably not be able to find any money for pensioners in next year’s budget due to the global credit crunch; yet, on the other hand, experts and think tanks say that the best way to deal with the credit crisis is to increase the pensions. I urge the government to give pensioners more money before Christmas. The best way to do this is to pass the Urgent Relief for Single Age Pensioners Bill 2008 in the House of Representatives, granting an increase in the single age, single service age and the widow B pension of $30 a week. Pensioners need this money now, not next year, and so does the Australian economy.

Question agreed to.