House debates

Thursday, 18 June 2015

Bills

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Fair and Sustainable Pensions) Bill 2015; Second Reading

11:38 am

Photo of Amanda RishworthAmanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Hansard source

Here before the parliament we have the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Fair and Sustainable Pensions) Bill 2015—legislation that is not only unfair but represents two broken promises by the Liberal Party, two broken promises by our Prime Minister. The first is those famous words that then opposition leader and now Prime Minister said: he would make no changes to the pension. This is the second lot of changes the government have tried to make to the pension. Their first budget hit pensioners very badly. The government were going to effectively cut $80 per week out of the pension over 10 years. That would have hit over three million pensioners in this country. It really showed that they had no understanding whatsoever of what it was like to live on a pension. In government, Labor understood this and took a very long-term look, through the Harper review, at retirement incomes and the pension. What was clear then was that so many pensioners were living below the poverty line. So many pensioners were not really able to make ends meet.

I am sure that if those on the other side went out and spoke to pensioners they would know how thrifty pensioners are and how much they make their money work for them. I hear stories again and again about how pensioners put their heater on for only a short period of time so that they do not get large energy bills. That is what our pensioners of Australia do. They have worked hard their entire lives, and it was wrong of the Howard government to let them slip below the poverty line and to have to struggle so much. That was why when Labor came to government we made three important changes to the pension. First was the $30-a-week increase in the base rate of the pension. The second was the introduction of a new indexation measure, the Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index. We were really looking at an index based on what pensioners and older Australians actually bought. Their basket looks somewhat different from the CPI basket because of their needs in older age. We brought in that index. Third was the increase of the indexation benchmark from 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings to 27.7 per cent of male total average weekly earnings. These changes not only brought an increase to the base pension but also ensured that the pension kept pace with increased costs of living over time.

Despite saying before coming to government that there would be no changes to the pension, this government obviously tried to go back on that promise and ensured that the pension did not keep pace. They ripped away some of the indexation arrangements and made sure that the indexation did not increase, as Labor had put in place. It meant that pensioners would be worse off. The pensioners of Australia are no mugs. They knew that this government had broken its promise, and that is why the backbench got pretty nervous. I think it was one of the ingredients that led them to knock on Tony Abbott's door and say, 'You gotta go, mate.' Not only was this a broken promise; it also hurt those very vulnerable older Australians who had worked all their lives. Instead of the government listening to this message, we have now seen in this latest budget a new set of proposals that are also unfair, that also hurt many pensioners. They not only hurt current pensioners but also those looking to retire in the future. As a consequence of the measures before the parliament today, 327,300 current pensioners will be left worse off and, of those, 236,000 will have a reduction on average of $130 a fortnight, which equates to $3,380 per year. And 91,000 pensioners will have their pension cancelled entirely. That is a reduction on average of $190 a fortnight or $4,940 a year.

We know that this government is very fond of advertising. They like to advertise their small business measures and they like to advertise their changes to higher education—although, they do not get that advertising quite accurate. Indeed, they mislead a lot of Australians in their higher education advertising. I wonder if the Liberal Party will be transparent and spend some political advertising on all those pensioners who will be worse off. I have got a message for the Liberal Party: they do not have to advertise it, because the pensioners of Australia are well aware of what these changes mean. The weekend after the budget, I was at a shopping centre speaking to pensioners. In fact, I had a line-up of pensioners who were very concerned about these changes. One gentleman illustrated to me that, under these changes, especially with interest rates being so low at the moment, with his small amount of assets and his part pension he will have less income than a full pensioner. He will be living on less income. He was very, very worried about that. He also highlighted—and I think this was very eloquently highlighted by the Leader of the Opposition—that a lot of his assets that were counted in the pension test do not derive income. He particularly highlighted his furniture, to which Centrelink has added a significant amount of money. He highlighted to me that he cannot get any income from his couch or his refrigerator but, importantly, he might find himself needing to sell those assets to make ends meet. I think he tried to sell his couch on Gumtree the other week, and he could not get any money for it. So it is absolutely ridiculous for the coalition to suggest that furniture could be sold and an income derived from that asset. Not only is there no income derived but indeed you cannot get a return from a couch or a second-hand refrigerator. I think this shows that the government is very out of touch.

I had streams of comments come from people in my electorate. I will read some of them. Jessica said:

Elderly people should not be penalised for working hard during their lives to own their own homes. I was a single mother and one of my main goals was to pay off my house on one wage and call it my own. Now that I am 72 and looking after my son with an untreatable disease, I feel that there should be some reward for working hard for most of my life.

David and Lynette said:

Hitting the people who have worked hard all their lives, and paid their taxes, is a bullying tactic. It is just appalling, and will cause so many of us added stress at a time in our lives when we just want to have some peace and financial security: Shame, shame, shame!!!

Cath and Royce said:

The Prime Minister continues to tell us he is not getting the message across. Well he is, we simply don't think the message/policies are equitable.

Graeme said:

Most of us worked hard in our lives and paid our taxes and what for? To suffer mistreatment in our later years? It is obvious that those making these decisions don't have to live on the pension and never will. Shame!

Wayne said:

I condemn the Abbott federal government for not protecting pensioners and for Mr Abbott's tendency to continually break promises that he made when he was campaigning for his job as prime minister.

Lynette said:

You must look after pensioners, those who have worked all their working life and have put back into the community what they can, volunteering etc, like myself, have paid taxes for all that time and should be looked after in our retirement.

I could keep going. I am sure it would be very enlightening for those on the other side to listen to. If they listened to their electorates they would know that these changes are unfair and do hit many of those who rely on this income. They want security. They have made financial arrangements and they certainly were not expecting this broken promise.

These changes will also impact on people looking to retire in the future. Within 10 years around half of all new retirees leaving the workforce will be affected by these changes. For couples due to retire in 10 years time the largest impacts will be felt by those on just below average earnings. They stand to lose $4,300 a year, or $112,000 each over their retirement. This is a significant amount. As has been highlighted by these figures, this will not just affect those currently in retirement but people retiring in the future.

I started by saying that this was two broken promises. One was the broken promise of no changes to the pension and obviously Tony Abbott's broken promise of not doing dirty deals with the Greens. In a press conference on Monday, 27 February 2012 he said:

The … point I make is that I don't do deals.

At a joint doorstop in Perth on Monday, 30 April 2012 he said:

I don't do deals.

The Prime Minister of this country has shown spectacularly bad judgement again and again by doing these sorts of dodgy backdoor deals.

Comments

No comments