Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The one thing that Australian pensioners know is that the Abbott government has them in its sights every time it wants to make budget savings. It is important to point out at the commencement of my contribution to this debate that it is always the case that the Abbott government said one thing before the election and then does something totally different after the election. Nothing demonstrates this more than its attack on pensioners.

Prior to the election, it said that there would be no cuts to the pension. Well, we have had two budgets and two attempts to cut the pension. This mean and tricky legislation is an attack on the part pension, in the same way that last year's budget was an attack on all pensioners, when the Abbott government planned to rip $23 billion out of the pockets of pensioners by changing the way that pensions were indexed. Labor knew this was unfair; we stood alongside pensioners, we fought and we won. The Abbott government has backed away from these mean-spirited changes that it had intended to make to the pension.

This Social Services Legislation Amendment (Fair and Sustainable Pensions) Bill 2015 introduces three measures from the 2015 budget. I would have to say that, in the electorate of Shortland, these measures were absolutely the most unpopular measures in the budget. Shortland is one of the oldest electorates in the country. The pensioners and the people living in Shortland are not wealthy people. They are hardworking people—many of them have worked in blue-collar jobs over the years—and they were devastated when they were confronted with these changes. The legislation changes the way that defined benefit schemes are treated, it changes the proportional payment for pensioners outside Australia and it changes the pension asset test, which was a really big issue in the Shortland electorate. In a moment I will share with the House some of the thoughts of part pensioners from Shortland electorate. I am pleased that the Minister for Social Services is in the House, because he will see how these changes are set to impact on the lives of real people—people that have worked so hard all their lives and are now looking at having to totally change the way that they live their lives.

The legislation also reintroduces three measures contained in the 2014 budget—that is, the abolition of the seniors supplement, the abolition of the pensioners education supplement and the abolition of the education entry payment. The education entry payment is quite a small amount of money, and it particularly benefited people with a disability. But unfortunately this government tends to marginalise those people that are most vulnerable within our community—those people that it thinks it can target in some way or another. To say that this legislation is good news for pensioners is an absolute twisting of the situation, because over 300,000 pensioners will be worse off as a result of these changes. It will increase the taper rate from $1.50 per fortnight for every $1,000 above the free area to $3 per fortnight for every $1,000 above the free area—that is doubling it. That will have a real impact on pensioners.

I think this might be an appropriate time for me to refer to some correspondence I have received from constituents. The first one is from Bridget. She and her husband have been saving and preparing for their retirement over a period of 10 to15 years. Everything that they have done has been directed towards ensuring that they have a sound retirement, a retirement where they can actually afford to live. She pointed out to me very clearly that they started their superannuation savings some time ago—but they started late. She only worked part time while her children were growing up and she was not able to put a lot of money into superannuation. As the children got older, she increased the amount of money that she was putting into super, and so did her husband. They did this so that they would reduce their dependency on a state provided age pension. They salary sacrificed, rather than spending their money on expensive holidays, new cars and other luxuries, and achieved their goal by building a retirement nest egg. They did this based on what the rules were at the time, and they did so because they wanted to be self-sufficient and only attract a small pension from the government. They always provided for themselves as much as possible and planned for their future, which included a modest top-up from the age pension. They see the changes to the taper reduction as a very arbitrary decision and one that will really impact on their retirement.

They point out that this legislation will be a disincentive to save for retirement, and it will have its greatest impact on low- and middle-income earners. The new lower and upper threshold levels of the asset test will mean that people will want to spend their money on cars and holidays because there is no point in saving their money. This is something that I think that the Abbott government needs to have in mind.

She talks about how she has had to change her existing arrangements. They will need to keep their super and investment options open and maybe invest in high-risk portfolios, which will mean that they will be more exposed to another GFC-style incident.

While she believes that the government's actions in this area are very harsh, she is quite upset about the fact that the government is failing to look at superannuation. She believes that targeting super tax concessions that unfairly benefit the top 20 per cent of income earners is something that the government should be looking at. She is absolutely horrified that this government can attack part-pensioners who get a very small income, whilst on the other hand ignoring that top 20 per cent of income earners, who, in most cases, will never qualify for the age pension. She believes that the very wealthy top 10 per cent of beneficiaries of the government's super tax concessions have 'undue influence' over the government's policies.

What she put to me was that the 10 or 20 per cent of top income earners were having influence on the area that the government targeted. It was listening to them, whilst it was not listening to the part-pensioners. To stand in this House, day after day, and try to make out that these part-pensioners are wealthy people with a lot of money is ludicrous, and it is a way of further marginalising those people. That is what this government does so well. It stigmatises, marginalises and attacks one group within the community at the expense of another, at the same time ignoring those people who truly are millionaires, who truly are benefiting from this government's very, very top-down approach to any type of changes. 'Do you have a lot of money? We'll leave you alone.' If you are just an ordinary, average Australian, watch out: the Abbott government is coming for you.

I would like to draw from the final part of her letter to me. She states very strongly that she objects to being described as a 'leaner', a 'drain on the public purse' and a 'liability' by the current government. She has worked for the past 46 years, and she points out that there are many hundreds of thousands of people who are just like her. She has made a significant contribution to the growth and success of this nation, something those on the other side of this House choose to ignore. She had a plan to continue working until she had sufficient money in her superannuation—she is over the age of 60 now—and then transition into working voluntarily within the community. She sees this as something that will need to be put on hold, and she is very, very angry about the fact that this government does not penalise in any way the very wealthy individuals in our society who dictate to the government.

I cannot disagree with that. I see that evidenced each and every day here in this parliament. This legislation targets those people who are most vulnerable within our community. Over a period of time, there will be more and more Australians who fall into that group.

I quickly want to touch on another constituent who sees these changes as unfair for part-pensioners. She talks a little about her circumstances. She lived in Sydney. She sold her home and came to Swansea, within the Shortland electorate. She bought a house that was much less expensive. This is very typical of people who move to the Central Coast and to Lake Macquarie. They invest the money that they receive from their house in a term deposit, and then they live off that, along with a part-pension. She points out that the return on term deposits is three per cent at the moment, and she needs to draw on her assets from time to time to maintain her living standard. But, if she were to sell her house and move to Sydney, she could not even afford to re-enter the market there. She finds it quite upsetting that people living in houses worth millions in Sydney are still able to access the pension, while she enjoys rather a modest living standard in Swansea. She finds it rather disgusting, and she sees these changes as threatening health and making people much more vulnerable at a time when they look to government for support.

Those are only two constituents. My office has received so many phone calls from pensioners who have been adversely affected by this—pensioners like a member of the Swansea Lions Club, who does so much volunteering work in the community, who came and said to me, 'This will change the way we live our lives.' I do not think it is right. This is unfair legislation. It is legislation that will attack the living standards of over 300,000 part pensioners, and the impact will be greater over a period of time. Everyone in Australia knows this is a mean-spirited government. It is arrogant and out of touch, and it constantly attacks Australian pensioners—Australians who have made an enormous contribution to Australia over their lifetime—whilst ignoring the flaws in the superannuation system, a system that rewards millionaires. The Abbott government is an unfair government that attacks vulnerable Australians. (Time expired)

See this speech in context