Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A letter has been received from Senator Moore:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter or public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

"The impact of the Abbott Government's proposed budget cuts on pensioners, families and young jobseekers."

Is the proposal supported?

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.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the very important matter of the impact of the Abbott government's proposed budget cuts on pensioners, families and young job seekers. If you want to find a definition of 'unfair', you need look no further than the Liberal Party's 2014-15 federal budget. If you want to find a manual on how to penalise and target marginalised people in our society, you need look no further than the Liberal Party's 2014-15 federal budget.

This MPI debate is a very important one because almost every Australian is affected or cares for somebody who is affected by these changes. These cruel cuts to pensions, family payments and young job seekers do not hurt faceless, fairytale bludgers out in tabloid TV land; these changes hurt Australian grandparents, sons, mothers, nieces, nephews. For those listening at home, these changes could hurt your aunt, your sister or your pop. These cuts do not hurt abstract figures on a spreadsheet; it is your family and your friends who are being hurt by these cruel cuts It is people you care for who will be affected.

These cuts cannot and should not be looked at in the cold, calculating way that this Liberal government has been looking at them. Real people will be hurt. The Liberal and National senators opposite should have the fortitude to look those people in the eye and explain why they think that those who are the least well off in Australian society should pay more than those with a high capacity to pay, because, before the election, the Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, said there would be no cuts to pensions. He said that there would be no changes to pensions and yet he has already passed the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures No. 1) Bill and the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures No. 2) Bill in the House, and we will be debating them here in this place very soon—although, if this afternoon is anything to go by, it might be a few days off.

Two point three million aged pensioners will have less money in their pockets as a result of the Prime Minister's lie. Australian pensioners feel absolutely betrayed by this government, and so they should. This government was happy to promise no changes to pensions but then turn around and attack them immediately. Mr Abbott and his government, as I said, should be very, very ashamed. Because of their cruel budget, pensioners will need to decide between heating their homes and eating. They will put off visiting the doctor or buying their medicines because health care will become unaffordable. Australian pensioners will experience pain and suffering because of the cuts and the taxes of this government. This is absolutely despicable, especially in a nation as prosperous as Australia. To think that this government wants to rip away support for people who have worked their entire lives to build this nation I find quite disgusting. I believe Australian pensioners deserve better, as do our young job seekers.

There are many harsh measures in this budget but perhaps none as harsh as the cuts to young job seekers. The government is willing to throw an entire generation on the trash heap. This measure will see young people left without any income support at all for a period of six months, and possibly longer, when they become unemployed. What are they supposed to live on? How are they meant to pay their rent? When the number of job seekers outnumbers the jobs by five to one, what is this measure supposed to achieve? How exactly will it help? Who will it help? It will not help at all.

The government want to shift the blame onto young job seekers for not being in work rather than do the hard yards to ensure that young job seekers find work. They know that they are tens of thousands of jobs behind in their promise to create one million jobs, and they want to blame unemployment on the unemployed. The Liberal-National government are saying to young people who lose their job, 'Sorry, mate, you're on your own.' If, after six months without income support, the young person has not found a job, the Abbott government will require them to take part in the Work for the Dole scheme. If, after six months in Work for the Dole, they still do not have a job, they will lose their payments for a further six months. This measure confines young people to an endless cycle of periods without income support. In my book, that is unfair. It is cruel and it is counterproductive. This measure will see many young job seekers pushed into poverty, crisis and homelessness. Unfortunately, it could have even worse effects for those with no income and no support base.

This budget includes extra money for the emergency assistance that the government believe will be required as a result of this measure. They know this budget is so cruel that they will need extra emergency assistance for around 500,000 young Australians, yet they still made these cuts. They knew how cruel it is going to be, but they still went ahead and did it. The government are making decisions which they know will push people into poverty. It is deliberate; it is callous; it is unwarranted. Those opposite should all be ashamed. Nowhere in the cruelty of the government have I seen anything more on display than in the harsh measures that they are going to impose on young job seekers.

Unfortunately, though, Australian families are also under attack by the Abbott government through the cuts to family payments. The social services and other legislation amendment bills, which we will be debating soon, include $7.5 billion in cuts to family payments. Once again, who is going to suffer? Low-income couples with children and single parents will be those who suffer the most. These bills seek to freeze the rates and thresholds for family tax benefits, including the low-income free area of $48,837 for those who receive the maximum rate of FTB-A. According to the Department of Social Services, a freeze to the low-income free area for FTB-A alone will see more than 370,000 families around $750 a year worse off in 2016-17.

This comes at the same time that the Prime Minister, with the Palmer United Party's help, has abolished from December 2016 the schoolkids bonus, with eligible families losing $410 per year for primary school aged children and $820 a year per secondary school aged child. Low-income parents will have to make hard decisions about what excursions they can afford to send the kids on and whether the kids can last another term without a new uniform.

There are no two ways about it—this budget is cruel to families. As a result of this budget, a single-income couple family on $65,000 with two school aged children will be around $6,000 worse off each year by 2016. That is around 10 per cent of their entire family budget. This is an utterly extraordinary attack on Australia families. They were promised by Mr Abbott and his cronies that they would be better off under his government. Can you really tell Australian families that they are better off when you have ripped $6,000 straight out of their pockets? These cuts are so terrible that you think they have to be a joke, but, unfortunately, they are not.

I would like to take a moment to remind the crossbenchers that, if they vote for the social services and other legislation amendment bills, they will be voting to cut pensions for millions of senior Australians, to lift the retirement age, to cut family tax benefits and to leave unemployed young people without any income for six months, along with a host of other changes that will attack the most disadvantaged of their constituents. If they vote for the social services and other legislation amendment bills, they will be absolutely complicit with this attack on Australian families, pensioners and youth. They will have to explain to the families, pensioners and youth why they voted with the government to support ripping away money from those who need it the absolute most.

The Prime Minister has talked a lot about 'Team Australia' lately. He wants everyone to be on his team. If so, maybe he needs to start treating all players with respect. He needs to not attack the most vulnerable. He needs to start paying attention to their views rather than riding roughshod over them. Mr Abbott's Team Australia is not going to be built on attacking families, attacking pensioners, and attacking young job seekers. This government need to take their cruel changes off the table and think about their purpose of governing for all Australians. This government are completely out of touch. Their priority is to help their mates in the mining sector and help big polluters at the expense of everyone else. Australians are angry at this government's callous cuts to families, young job seekers and pensioners—and they have every right to be so.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have in my hot little hand Senator Moore's matter of public importance for this afternoon, and I have to say that the impact of the Abbott government's proposed budget cuts on pensioners, on families and on young job seekers—or, for that matter, anyone else—is absolutely nothing compared to the impact on pensioners, families and young job seekers in the future if public expenditure is not brought under control. Is there an impact on pensioners, on families and on job seekers from the current budget? Yes, there is. I do not deny it. But, if it is unfair—and that is what the Labor Party is arguing—it is nowhere near as unfair as when future generations will be asked to pay for current generations. If public expenditure is not brought under control, future generations will be paying for us.

Is it fair to ask future generations of pensioners to pay for our current health, education and welfare? Is it fair to ask future generations of families to pay for our current health, education and welfare? Is it fair to ask future generations of young job seekers to pay for the current generation's health, education and welfare? How is that fair? How is it fair that, in less than 10 years, pensioners, families and young job seekers—all the people mentioned in Senator Moore's matter of public importance—will be paying $3 billion interest per month to finance our, the current generation's, health, education and welfare? Is that fair?

Only after future taxpayers have paid the $3 billion interest per month—and that will happen within 10 years—can any government, a coalition government or a Labor government, start to service their needs. Under current projections, before any money is spent on future generations—even one cent—future generations will have to pay back $3 billion per month simply to service the interest rates. How is it fair that, in 10 years, every pensioner in this country will be in debt for $25,000? How fair is it that, in 10 years, every member of every family will be debt for $25,000? How fair is it that, in 10 years, every job seeker will be in debt for $25,000 to pay for the current generation's health, education and welfare? The coalition believes that, in the end, it is pretty simple: it is only fair when generations pay for themselves—with allowances made for intergenerational infrastructure, I grant you. The coalition believes that, fundamentally, the only socially just budget, the only socially just deficit, is where generations pay for themselves.

What has happened since World War II? What has happened is that social democratic and socialist governments have changed their spots. In the past, without apology and quite openly, the left used to believe in redistributing money from the rich to everyone else. They used to say, 'Eat the rich'. It was quite open. In postwar Great Britain, it was quite open. But then, with modernising social democracy, in the late 70s, the 80s and the 90s, the social democrats discovered that there were not enough rich people and that their policy of eating the rich actually was an electoral risk. They realised not only that it was economically ridiculous and it would make the left an economic basket case but also that they lost too many votes and they would never be elected.

So what happened? What did Labor parties here in Australia and social democratic parties overseas do to raise funds for the great social democratic projects throughout the Western world? They became very, very cunning. Rather than openly talk about eating the rich and redistribution, they became very cunning. Rather than risking electoral backlash from the better-off, the social democrats decided to take from the powerless the money that they needed. The Labor Party always say that they stick up for the powerless—anyone listening will have heard that—but they take the money from the powerless. They take it from those people who are too young to vote and those people yet to be born—future generations.

What the left in the Western world—the social democrats and the socialists—realised was that they could not take the money from the rich anymore because there were not enough of them. So, instead, rather than eating the rich, they decided to eat the children and the next generation—because, to eat them, there are virtually no electoral repercussions. How clever it was of the left to discover that! Rather than blatantly, honestly and openly saying, 'We want to redistribute wealth from the wealthy to the not-so-wealthy,' they are now redistributing wealth from the future—from kids not yet born and from the young—to current generations to service their wants. The left believe that is socially just to ask future generations in this country to pay for their living standards today—and they should be damned for that.

I respect people like some of the old Lefties who quite honestly and openly get up and say, 'No, we should tax the wealthy more.' I disagree with Senator Cameron and Senator Carr on virtually everything, but at least they are honest. But, to finance the social democratic project, this modern Labor will take money from those yet to be born and our children. They will take money from them because they cannot pay the deficit. Every time the Labor Party get into office they leave Australia further in debt. They have done that every time they have been elected since 1904. There has never been an exception in the history of the Labor Party—not once in 110 years. They always leave Australia further in debt, and it has got a lot worse. It got so must worse in the Rudd and the Gillard years when they deliberately and wantonly took money from children who are not yet born and people who cannot yet vote to pay for the services and to secure the support of the electorate. It is the most pathetic vote-buying performance.

They are not the only ones. Western Europe has been wallowing. The social democratic parties of Western Europe have done this for years and they are condemned for asking future generations to fund the health, education and welfare bills of the current generation, asking our kids to look after us. It is the worst part of social democracy. I am quite happy to have a debate with anyone about who should be paying the bill, but there is the farce that the Labor Party comes back with every time about how unfair it is. I will tell you what is unfair: you lot over there forcing future generations to pay for your electoral promises. For your electoral promises, you want your children and your grandchildren and kids yet born to pay for your bill. It is a moral disgrace.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have senators over there gibbering because they know what they have done. They are quite happy to ask my children and my grandchildren to pay for their electoral promises. It is the most disgraceful aspect. These are the people who talk for the coalition about talking for the powerless. They talk about social justice and they take money from people who are not yet born and our children, and they expect us to take them seriously. The Labor Party is not only absolutely economically incompetent but morally corrupt. It is a disgrace. (Time expired)

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

I rise to contribute to this debate because I agree with the proposition that there are impacts of the Abbott government's proposed budget cuts on pensioners, families and young job seekers. Impacts can be positive or negative. In this case, they are extremely negative. It is widely recognised. Every witness and all the submissions, except for the government's submission, in the inquiry into the budget cuts delivered through social services bills 1 and 2 clearly showed the negative impacts on pensioners, families, young people and single parents. The impacts that this budget will have are endless.

Some of the cuts do not cut in until 2017. The government thought they were being really smart. They promised they would not make cuts to pensions, so they think they can fool Australians by saying, 'Don't worry about the indexation measure,' which ACOSS calculates, when the full ramifications kick in, will decrease pensions by $80 a week. The government is trying to be very cute by saying, 'But that's not a cut.' I am sorry, but in everybody else's definition that is a cut. When you take money out of people's pockets through legislative change, that is a cut.

The government have also increased the retirement age. If you were having a proper, fully considered legislative approach to the way we address retirement age, some people might think raising the retirement age to 70 would be reasonable if you deal with all of the ramifications. The simple fact is that the government have not dealt with the ramifications. They seem to ignore the fact that older Australians are falling out of the workforce and are not able to regain employment because of age discrimination and the need for training and skill development, which they are being denied. Raising the retirement age means you condemn people to living on Newstart, which is now $170 below the age pension. So older Australians cop it through this budget in a number of ways, not to mention the impact of co-payments and other measures that are contained in the budget.

When we were looking at the Senate inquiry, a number of organisations made very good submissions. St Vincent de Paul made a good submission and articulated the issue around the modelling that NATSEM had done. They said that it had made it clear that this budget is raising revenue by taking income from disadvantaged people in far greater proportions than from the affluent. They said:

As a result of changes to pensions, family allowances, unemployment benefits, and other social security payments, the poorest one-in-five Australian families will be hit for up to 10.8% of their income in 2017-18. By contrast, the richest … families can expect to forego a maximum of 1.7% in the same period.

We just listened to Senator Mason's contribution when he was talking about robbing future generations. That is a complete nonsense argument when you look at the fact that the government are ignoring revenue measures that are here now—revenue measures that they could use to raise revenue so that we do not make the poorest, most vulnerable members of our community pay for their ideologically driven decisions. That is what this is about. This is not about reducing debt; this is about their ideological agenda to get those who they see making a lifestyle choice to live on income support. That phrase has been repeated in this place a number of times. There have been comments made about young people living on the couch instead of getting work. That is so far from the truth it is laughable. They talk in this place—and they have done it again today—about handouts. No, we have a social security safety net to help people who are unemployed, to help the most vulnerable in our community. They choose to take the approach of demonising those who unfortunately have not been able to find work, who are unemployed. Instead of offering support, proper case management and access to proper training that is going to help people into work, they choose to demonise people and put even more barriers in their way.

When you look at the impact on young job seekers, the cruellest budget measure is dumping young people under 30 onto no income support—nothing, zilch—for six months. But this is not just a waiting period; it will be rotational. So if they are unlucky enough not to find work in that first six months, they will be doing work for the dole, with no proper training or support there, and then they will be back onto no income support.

Poverty is one of the biggest barriers to be overcome to find work. If you have no money, how can you even buy the basic essentials? What the government has cleverly done is say: 'You can go and get emergency relief. We've given a bit more money for emergency relief.' What they do not mention is: 'We've cut that money out of the Department of Social Security's discretionary grants program. In fact, we haven't given more money; we have just taken more money away from another program that might provide that help.' How can you look for work and put in 40 job applications a month—which the government still says is what they are going to be doing—when you do not know whether you are going to have a roof over your head, if you do not know whether you are going to be able to maintain your accommodation. All your energies are consumed in living from day to day. But that is one of the biggest barriers they are going to put in place for young job seekers.

And then we go to the impacts on single parents. Not content with starting the attack on single parents, which the conservatives did under the Howard government, not content with the cuts that the Gillard government then made, they have to hit single parents and their families yet again. The indexation reductions that they are making to pensions for those on parenting payment single and parenting payments hit straightaway. They do not even have the decency to wait until 2017 when they are lowering the indexation for other pensions; they are lowering them straightaway—another cut to income support for single parents who are raising the next generation.

Senator Mason spoke about impacting on future generations. Well, the government are impacting on future generations with these budget cuts because they are damaging the prospects of those young people. We know what growing up in poverty does for young lives. It can affect your prospects for the rest of your life. That is what they have been doing to the single parents of this country and their families. They conveniently forget that being a single parent means you have children you are trying to raise. When you cut support for single parents, it actually means you are cutting support for their children as well. Those single parents deserve our support. We are starting to see the impacts of the cuts that the previous governments have made to single parent payments. We know that many of them are already worse off. And not content to just get the funding they are getting, they are also cutting the pensioner education supplement. What do you think that is going to do to the prospects of single parents when they are trying to raise their family and, sometimes, managing a part-time job and improving their education so that they can get a better job and raise their children not in poverty and afford access to activities that other people take for granted.

People with disabilities access the pensioner education supplement. This budget is going to hit people with disabilities because the government are targeting them as well. It was no coincidence that the front page of the paper was running articles demonising people with disabilities at the time these draconian budget measures were announced. This budget will adversely impact on young people, pensioners and families.