House debates

Tuesday, 24 March 2015

Matters of Public Importance

Age Pension

3:15 pm

Photo of Mrs Bronwyn BishopMrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Jagajaga proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The urgent need for the Government to back down on its cuts to pensions

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

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

Photo of Jenny MacklinJenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | | Hansard source

I thank all of those behind me on the Labor side of the parliament for everything they have done to support pensioners, to support all of the pensioners in Australia—3.7 million of them.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting

Photo of Mrs Bronwyn BishopMrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

There will be silence in the chamber. We are on a matter of public importance.

Photo of Jenny MacklinJenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. You can understand why those opposite are ashamed. Before the last election, the Prime Minister said on national television that there would be no changes to pensions. 'No changes at all', the Prime Minister said—and it was not the first time he said it. He was absolutely unequivocal about it: 'No changes to pensions; no cuts to pensions.' That was the promise that this Prime Minister made to 3.7 million pensioners around Australia before the last election.

We now know that this Prime Minister can no longer be believed about anything he says. He has told a huge untruth to all pensioners in Australia. We now know that this Prime Minister's words stand for absolutely nothing. In their first budget, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer broke their promise with an unprecedented attack on Australia's pensions. It is written in the budget, there for every single person to see, that what this government wants to do is cut the indexation rate for the pension, cut the deeming thresholds for the pension and increase the age for the age pension—to the highest age in the developed world.

Mr Chester interjecting

The member for Gippsland is making a heck of a lot of noise. He has done nothing to defend pensioners. But what he did do is come in here on 24 June last year as a member of the National Party and vote for a cut to pension indexation. Each and every one of them on that side did so.

Mr Morrison interjecting

The minister at the table is saying that it was not voted on. You were here! You voted for it! You were not the minister at the time, but it was in a bill that came into the parliament on 24 June last year—and each and every one of you voted to cut pension indexation. Each and every one of you voted for that bill, each and every one of you voted to increase the pension age and each and every one of you will now be held to account in your electorates as we campaign right around this country to show how untruthful you have been. Shame on each and every one of you as you seek to punish age pensioners, as you seek to punish disability support pensioners. Each and every one of you also voted to cut the indexation of the carer payment on 24 June last year.

All of us on this side of the parliament know that pensioners have to get by on a very modest income of around $20,000 a year. We also know, and pensioners increasingly know: if this government were ever to get their way in the Senate—and we will do everything to try to prevent that—the Australian Council of Social Services has worked out that there would be an effective cut of around $80 a week. Pensioners would be $80 a week worse off over the next decade if this government got its way.

This minister and this government continue to try to mislead pensioners. The Prime Minister tried to say that pensioners are not getting their pension cut, but pensioners are not fooled. Pensioners are also not fooled by this minister, who again today claimed that pensioners would be better off under the current government than under Labor. This is of course completely and totally false. Labor's fair indexation system makes sure that the pension is indexed by whichever measure is the higher: the Consumer Price Index, the Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index—which Labor created and this government wants to get rid of—and male total average weekly earnings. Labor will always make sure that the pension is benchmarked against male total average weekly earnings.

John Howard understood how important it was. He put it into legislation. This government wants to get rid of that link to wages. Peter Whiteford at the Australian National University has done analysis of this to show what would happen over the next 40 years. The government did not show this in the Intergenerational report. They were too frightened to put this detail in the Intergenerational report because the independent analysis shows that the pension would go from the current level of 28 per cent of male wages to 16 per cent of male wages. That is exactly what would happen if those opposite were to get their way.

The Parliamentary Budget Office has also belled the cat on this issue. The Parliamentary Budget Office, independent of Labor and independent of the government, has made clear that this government will spend $23 billion less on pensions. Whose pockets is that money going to come out of? It will come out of the pockets of pensioners, because pensioners will not be getting the same level of increase that they would have got if Labor's method of indexation had continued.

What we know, and what the all pensioner organisations know, is that this will drive pensioners further into poverty. Does this minister want to have, on his head, the driving of pensioners into poverty as a result of this change to pension indexation? Is that what everybody over there wants to have?

I see the member for Barton is here. There are 17,500 pensioners in the electorate of Barton alone. And this member for Barton has already voted, on 24 June last year, to cut the pension indexation of 17,500 pensioners in his electorate. We could say the same for National Party seats. In the electorate of Page—just to choose another electorate—there are a lot of pensioners. In the electorate of Page there are 21,800 pensioners, but the member for Page also voted for these cuts. The member for Page is going to have to go along to the pensioners in each of the towns and villages in his electorate and own up to them that he has voted to cut the pension.

What Labor is going to do continuously, from now until the next election, is make clear the dishonesty of each and every one of those opposite—from the Prime Minister down. The Prime Minister promised before the election that there would be no changes to pensions. We are going to stand with all the pensioners—aged pensioners, disability pensioners and carers—and we will fight these unfair changes each and every day until the next election, and we will make sure that until these changes are dropped from the parliament the government is held to account by the pensioners of Australia.

3:29 pm

Photo of Scott MorrisonScott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | | Hansard source

I thank those opposite for the opportunity to participate in this debate, and to point out very clearly the untruths that the member's statements are based on, in representing to this House that somehow pensions have been cut in this country. We know that pensions have not been cut. Pensions have continued to increase every six months. And we know that since this government was elected the increase in the pension has been over six per cent. It has gone up $78 for couple pensioners since we were elected 18 months ago, and it has gone up $51.80 for single pensioners. That is an increase of over six per cent in those fortnightly payments. That is what has happened to the pension for the 2½ million people who are on the age pension in this country.

The commitment that was given by the Prime Minister before the election was that there would be no changes to pensions during this terms of parliament. And that is exactly what has occurred. There have been no changes to pensions at all in relation to this term of parliament. Instead, we have done a number of things. We have increased the pension. That has certainly happened. It has gone up by the amounts that I have said—over six per cent—under this government. Not only that; pensions have increased faster than wages.

I know those opposite are very enamoured of the male total average weekly earnings. If the pension had only gone up by male total average weekly earnings then today pensioners on a single pension would be $22.40 worse off, and couples would be $33.60 worse off. I am simply saying that the pension has risen faster than wages under this government. For those opposite to suggest that the pension has fallen—that the pension has been cut—is just an out and out untruth; it is a complete untruth.

As I said in question time, pensioners are better off today than they would have been if those opposite had remained in government. There is a very simple reason for that: there has been a greater than six per cent increase in the pension under this government, and we got rid of the carbon tax. But we did not just get rid of the carbon tax; we kept the carbon tax compensation.

If you want to know what the impact would have been on pensioners had the carbon tax continued, then you only need to look at the carbon tax compensation which those opposite said pensioners would need to deal with the carbon tax falling upon our pensioners. And what is the value of that? For a single pensioner it is $14.10 per fortnight. So, had we not got rid of the carbon tax then they would have been $14.10 worse off. If those opposite had stayed in government and they had not got rid of the carbon tax, then single pensioners today would be $14.10 worse off per fortnight, and couple pensioners would be $21.20 worse off per fortnight.

So we have kept the pension going up, we have got rid of the carbon tax and we have kept the carbon tax compensation. But more recently we have had changes to deeming rates which delivered, in addition to what I have talked about, $200 million for those on part pensions. That means $83.20 extra a year for those on part pensions. So it is not just those on full pensions who have received an increase from this government, it is those on part pensions as well. Those opposite have gone around the country and they have only one policy when it comes to the pension, and that is just to scare vulnerable pensioners—to tell them things that are not true and to tell them that their pension is being cut when in fact their pension has been increased.

It was under the previous opposition that a measure was put forward into this place to increase the pension by some $30, and it was actually opposed by the government at the time. This is what the member opposite who put this forward, the member for Jagajaga, said about putting forward a motion to increase the pension, and it was opposed by the government:

Playing politics with pensioners is really about as low as you can go.

The member for Jagajaga knows that the pension has been going up, together with the Leader of the Opposition, who says, 'It does not matter which road you take; any road will get you there.' It is quite that clear that on pensions those opposite are taking the low road, and they are prepared to scare pensioners and tell them things that are not true, at a time in pensioners lives when there should be some stability, some certainty and some reassurance.

Those opposite are running around frightening pensioners, and they are doing it before the New South Wales state election too. They are doing it in their last ditch effort in New South Wales. They are running around in New South Wales saying, 'New South Wales is not for sale'. No-one told Eddie Obeid that. He thought it was his for sale, to be able to share it with his mates. No-one told Ian Macdonald that.

But coming back to the issue of pensions, what we are seeking to do is ensure that we can have a sustainable and adequate pension for the future and that we are engaged in a conversation about a policy future. I have said on I do not know how many occasions—a conversation that the member for Jagajaga does not want to be part of—that I am open to all sorts of options about how we can ensure that the pension is sustainable, because the intergenerational report says that if we go down the path that Labor is suggesting, which is do nothing and ride the pension off the edge of a cliff, then it will reach 3.6 per cent of GDP. If you go down the path currently modelled in the intergenerational report, which would see it move to average weekly earnings over that period of time, it would be 2.7 per cent of GDP.

Photo of Jenny MacklinJenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | | Hansard source

It is not your policy.

Photo of Scott MorrisonScott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | | Hansard source

It is our policy—I note the interjection from the member for Jagajaga—because it is an official government document. You only have to look it up. It is right there in the intergenerational report.

The question for those opposite is this: how are you going to fund your policy to stay on a pension trajectory that will in the long run ensure that the pension runs off the edge of a cliff? What we have from those opposite is complete unfunded empathy. They will go around and they will scare pensioners and will empathise with every single problem in the country and not put forward one solution as to how you address them. That is a cruel thing to do, particularly to pensioners. It is a cruel thing to say that their pensions are going down when they are actually going up. It is a cruel thing to do to future generations who rely on the pension to say, 'You can just keep going on your merry way, you do not have to make any changes and the pension will be there for those in the future.' Well it will not be. If you do not embrace sustainable policies for the pension and for other measures then you will find yourself in a very difficult situation.

In government they understood that, perhaps. I am referring to comments by Senator Evans, the former Leader of the Government in the Senate. He did not make much sense when he was talking about immigration, but perhaps he was making a bit more sense when he was talking about the pension, when there was a proposal from those on this side, when we were in opposition, to increase the pension, which I note and acknowledge that the government ultimately took up when they increased the pension. They ultimately caught up and got there. But this is what they said about the proposal at the time:

I know that this proposition is disarmingly attractive—

that is to increase the pension—

… it is very easy for minors and Independents to argue. They do not have to balance the budget.

He said:

It is a really easy headline.

Today it is a four-word slogan that they have turned into a website—and they talk about four-word slogans. This government has three word achievements: we did stop the boats, we did abolish the carbon tax, we did get rid of the mining tax and we have been dealing with Labor's deficit and debt disaster, which was left by the fiscal arsonists opposite. He also said:

It is really easy to get a clap at a pensioner meeting, but that is no substitute for the serious work of this parliament and the serious work of government in public policy.

So what we see now is an opposition that when in government was prepared to make an argument like that. When invited, in opposition, to a serious discussion about how we make sure that the safety net that generations of Australians have received from those who went before us, that those who sit in this parliament now, at least on the government benches, want to make sure is there in the future, they do not want to be part of the debate. They simply want to allow our safety net to wither while they go around in a populist dance with pensioners all around the country, seeking to frighten them. Scaring the pensioners is not a policy; it is just populist nonsense from an opposition that has completely lost its way.

This government will continue to increase pensions and will do the right thing by pensioners, today and tomorrow.

3:35 pm

Photo of Justine ElliotJustine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I am very pleased to be speaking on this Matter of Public Importance, which is the urgent need for the government to back down on its cuts to pensions. I was particularly interested to hear the series of untruths by the minister for more than 10 minutes. It was just quite astounding. I would challenge him to come to my electorate of Richmond and speak to the more than 20,000 pensioners to tell them that rubbish that he spouted here. It was just unbelievable.

The fact is that they are cutting pensions and it is hurting people. I can see the minister is walking out now. I challenge him to come to my electorate. I daresay he would not do that and tell them the sort of rubbish that he was just spruiking in here. The fact is that this government's unfair budget and cruel cuts have been devastating to the nation and to older Australians, particularly those older Australians in regional areas like my electorate of Richmond.

All we see from this government is chaos and constant mismanagement and conflicting narratives and sometimes backflips—just total chaos. All we get are bad decisions from a bad government, and one of the worst decisions is the cuts to pensions for our older Australians. I am calling on the government to back down and reverse those cruel cuts.

Locals in my area have every right to feel betrayed by this government in regional areas, and, of course, they are particularly feeling betrayed by the National Party. The Liberal-National government continues to relentlessly attack the standard of living of older Australians by cutting their pensions and slashing services, particularly health services, and by increasing taxes, like the petrol tax.

Before the election, the Prime Minister promised there would be no change to pensions. He said on SBS News on 6 September 2013: 'No cuts to education. No cuts to health. No change to pensions. No changes to the GST. No cuts to the ABC or SBS.' In my area, all the National Party candidates were running around saying 'no cuts to pensions'. We now know that the Prime Minister's promises stand for nothing. In regional Australia the National Party promises stand for nothing. They cannot be trusted.

What happened of course in their very first budget is that this government launched this unprecedented attack upon the pension. They had cuts to pension indexation, cuts to pensioner concessions, cuts to the deeming thresholds for part pensioners—and increasing the retirement age to 70. So we are calling on the government to drop these cruel cuts. Pensioners never voted for a cut to their pension.

In my electorate there are 20,520 people on the age pension who had their pension cut by this cruel government. The fact is that they never voted for these cuts to indexation to leave them $80 a week worse off. They never voted for any of these cruel cuts. Make no mistake; Labor will fight these changes every day until the next federal election; every single day we will fight them.

This Saturday at the New South Wales election, pensioners on the North Coast in my electorate will have a chance to tell the National Party that they never voted for this cut to their pension. They have a chance to send them a message. They should put the National Party last and send a strong message about their pension cuts. I am urging them to do that.

They should also send a message that they do not want their electricity networks privatised and their electricity bills going up, which is exactly what will happen if the National Party get their way and sell off TransGrid. TransGrid is the distribution network that carries electricity through regional New South Wales through the North Coast of New South Wales.

I was surprised that just today in Tweed Heads the National Party have been caught out telling lies. The state National Party MP for Tweed, Geoff Provest, was out at prepoll handing out a form which said:

Our Poles and Wires will remain 100% publicly owned.

He was caught out telling lies. The fact is that the Nationals are selling off the electricity network which includes TransGrid. And, as I have said, TransGrid distributes electricity throughout regional New South Wales. So the fact is that you just cannot trust the National Party. There they are, out there peddling these lies. As I said: send the National Party a message; number every box, and put the National Party last. Putting up electricity prices is another cruel attack on our pensioners.

As I have said, one of the cruellest measures in the last budget was the cuts to age pensions. It really was devastating to people in regional areas—and that was on top of the other broken promises by this government, particularly their cuts to health. It is only Labor that supports our pensioners and older Australians. In 2009 we implemented the largest increase in the pension in 100 years, and that included a $70 per fortnight increase to the base rate of the pension. We listened to the community and we made sure that increase was in place.

Yet, from this government, all we get are cruel cuts and broken promises. Can I tell you that, for those more than 20,000 pensioners in my electorate, these pension cuts are devastating. These people are living week to week; they have the pension cuts, the cuts to their health and hospital services; they have increased taxes, like the petrol tax; and now, potentially, they have increases in their electricity because of the Liberal-National state government.

3:40 pm

Photo of Alan TudgeAlan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | | Hansard source

The Labor Party has run a lot of fear campaigns since we have come to government, but perhaps the worst fear campaign of them all is to suggest to the vulnerable pensioners of Australia that they are going to have their funding cut.

We heard it today from the Leader of the Opposition who came into this House and was asking questions of the Prime Minister, implying that pensioners were going to have $80 a fortnight cut from their pensions. It is just wrong. It is absolutely misleading and it is deliberately setting fear amongst pensioners across this country. Nothing like that is going to happen. The Leader of the Opposition knows that. The member for Jagajaga knows that. The member who just spoke knows that as well. It is a deliberate fear campaign, and it is atrocious. The member for Jagajaga said herself that we should not be playing politics with pensioners. She is exactly right, but unfortunately that is exactly what she has been doing.

I want to clear up once and for all what has actually happened with the pension since we came to government. What has actually happened is that the pension has gone up six percentage points in the 18 months since we were elected to government. That means, for example, that the pension for a married couple is now $78 higher. The pension for a single is $51.80 higher than what it was when we first came to government. We also know the pension goes up—

Ms Butler interjecting

Ms Ryan interjecting

They do not like listening to this. They do not like hearing the fact that the pension goes up each and every year. In fact, it goes up twice a year: in March and in September. It will go up again. This September, next March, the following September—

Ms Butler interjecting

Photo of Bruce ScottBruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

Order on my left. The honourable member for Griffith is out of her place in this chamber and is disorderly as she interjects.

Photo of Alan TudgeAlan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | | Hansard source

the following March, the pension will go up.

Plus we have got rid of the carbon tax but we kept the carbon tax compensation for pensioners. What does this mean? This means there is an additional $21.20 for a married couple per fortnight. For a single it means they have an additional $14.10 per fortnight, which they would not have had had the Labor Party still been in government. Had the Labor Party still been in government, the carbon tax would still be in place. And it would not just be sitting at $23 per tonne, but, according to their own forecast, it was to go all the way up to $350 per tonne. That was their forecast, outlined in their economic documents.

But perhaps the worst thing that Bill Shorten was directly responsible for in relation to pensioners was the raiding of their inactive accounts. The member for Kooyong gave a very clear example today of a 92-year-old lady who had her funds raided. For those who are not aware, this is what Bill Shorten oversaw: he said that if there were ever inactive accounts—if an account was inactive for only three years—he would go and grab that money. And do you know what? Within a 12-month period, he took $550 million from pensioners and from other people who had inactive accounts. That is what they did. Bank robber Bill—bandit Bill—took $550 million from pensioners' accounts.

I have been asked where that $550 million sits in the scheme of things against the great bank robberies of the world. It is a great question. I did a bit of research and, believe it or not, the great train robbery of 1963 only rated $74 million. So it is well above that. That came in at No. 7. No. 5 was the Knightsbridge security deposit robbery of 1987. That was $200 million in Italy. The British Bank of the Middle East robbery of 1976 was $210 million—which of course was stolen in the middle of the Civil War in Beirut. That came in at No. 4. The Dar Es Salaam bank robbery in 2007 in Baghdad, just after the Iraq war had begun, was $282 million. Bill Shorten comes in at No. 2—only beaten by Saddam Hussein, who robbed $920 million the day before—

Photo of Bruce ScottBruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

Order! The parliamentary secretary will refer to members by their title in this place.

Photo of Alan TudgeAlan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | | Hansard source

I shall. Had Bill Shorten had one further year, he would have—

Photo of Bruce ScottBruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

Order!

Photo of Alan TudgeAlan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | | Hansard source

Had the Leader of the Opposition had one further year, he would have— (Time expired)

3:46 pm

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

It is time for the members on the other side of this parliament to tell the truth. It is time for them to stop their masquerade. It is time for them to stop pretending that they are the best friends that pensioners have ever had. It is time for them to fess up and admit to the pensioners of Australia that they are cutting their pension. Australian pensioners know that you cannot trust the Abbott government. Before the election, Tony Abbott and his bunch of merry men promised one thing and since the election he has done another thing. Before the election he said that there would be no changes to the pension.

Photo of Alan TudgeAlan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hope that, instead of referring to Tony Abbott, she could refer to his correct title—as I was picked up.

Photo of Bruce ScottBruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

The member for Shortland will refer to members by their title in this place.

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

I understand why those on the other side of this House want to stop me. They do not like hearing the truth. They do not like hearing that the Prime Minister and all of them have voted to cut pensioners' pensions. The pensioners of Australia know it.

Mr Tudge interjecting

I do. I really understand that they do not want the pensioners to know the truth. I am quite happy for the parliamentary secretary to stand up any time, because I will be making sure that all pensioners know that those on the other side of this House are attacking their pensions.

The debate around indexation is quite interesting. With the CPI pensioners' pensions go up, but what those on the other side of this House are not telling the pensioners is that, instead of having the choice of the pensioner and beneficiary living index, the CPI and male total average weekly earnings, they are choosing what they believe to be the lowest possible indexation available. Previously there was a choice of three; now there is a choice of one—one that will deliver the lowest possible indexation; one that is going to see pensioners $80 worse off over 10 years and will result in $23 billion less being paid to pensioners by 2024.

This government does not like pensioners. This government attacks pensioners. This government wants to increase the pension age to 70. This government just does not understand that some people at 70 years of age are blue-collar workers and could not possibly work. Those opposite are showing their total lack of understanding of the people they represent in this parliament.

The Shortland electorate has 21,877 pensioners—the fifth most in New South Wales and the seventh most in Australia, but not quite as many as Paterson, which is the fourth. I wonder where the member for Paterson is and why he is not in here today standing up for the pensioners in Paterson. The pensioners in Paterson look to him to represent them in this parliament.

I hate to report this to the parliament, but pensioners do not trust the Abbott government. That may surprise those on the other side of this House, but it is not a surprise to any of us here. We all know that you cannot trust the Abbott government. We all know that the Abbott government has made cuts to pensions, has attacked Medicare, has increased the cost of medication and has increased the fuel tax. This government is constantly attacking pensioners. The Abbott government does not like pensioners. It views them as a fiscal liability. It does not value the enormous contribution pensioners and our veterans have made, both in the past and on an ongoing basis—through, for example childcare and volunteerism—and it used the Intergenerational report to validate its attack on pensioners.

The Abbott government is attacking pensioners who have made Australia the great country it is today. My message to the Abbott government is: stop attacking pensioners. Stop attacking their standard of living. (Time expired)

3:51 pm

Photo of Andrew NikolicAndrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

During his excellent contribution, my friend, the hardworking member for Aston, expressed surprise at today's motion from the member for Jagajaga—which I can tell him actually continues the scare campaign that she had led since last year's budget. She has led a veritable conga line of those on the other side to my home state of Tasmania. These scare merchants have visited my state to misrepresent government policy and scare vulnerable people about their pensions. I can recall the member for Jagajaga visiting last May, where she said that pensioner concessions would be cut. Yet the Premier of Tasmania had made clear that the Commonwealth contribution to those concessions was only relatively minor and that the state would be filling that gap and there were in fact no changes to pensioner concessions. That was an entirely false claim by the member for Jagajaga.

The member for Jagajaga also claimed that pensions would be cut from 1 July, knowing that was untrue and that her comments would cause anxiety to vulnerable people. I note the member for Gorton visited Tasmania a few weeks after the member for Jagajaga and replicated the exact same Pinocchio act. He had the audacity to complain about the high youth unemployment rate in Tasmania, but he forgot to mention that unemployment in Tasmania—both adult and youth—rose to the highest in the country under Labor-Green governments in Hobart and Canberra. I note he does not have very much to say today when the unemployment rate in Tasmania is at a three-year low after only a very short period of time of coalition government in Canberra and Liberal government in Tasmania. The member for Jagajaga and the member for Gorton and their Labor-Green mates are frankly all scare and no solution. They are in denial and fail to acknowledge the extraordinary economic damage they left behind—and they now stand in the way of our efforts to clean up that mess.

It is little wonder to me that the ABC's Fact Check found the member for Jagajaga's mendacious claims about the age pension 'unfounded'. What that means is: without foundation; untrue. What the member for Jagajaga, the member for Gorton and their Labor mates conveniently forgot is that they were senior members of the Labor-Green government. They were at the heart of those appalling Labor-Green decisions that now impose a billion dollars every month in borrowings just to pay the interest on their debt. They are the ones on that side of the House responsible for the fact that we borrow $100 million every day in this country just to pay the bills. Think about the opportunity costs!

Ms Butler interjecting

I note that Mr Rudd's replacement over there—still out of her seat and still interjecting—does not think about the enormous opportunity cost of that $100 million every day we borrow more than we earn: new roads, two new schools a day, a new teaching hospital every week. If only we did not have to pay those opportunity costs.

What rampant hypocrisy when it comes to pensions! The member for Lilley, when he was the Labor Treasurer, announced in the 2009 budget that to make the pension sustainable Labor would change the pension. Mr Swan referred to the need for 'major structural savings to support the longer term sustainability of our pension system'. A joint media release was issued by the members for Lilley and Jagajaga—the member for Jagajaga was the minister for families at the time—referring to Labor's pension changes as 'a responsible reform to meet the challenge of an ageing population and the economic impact it will have for all Australians.' What has changed? What has caused this transition to skeletons and spiders and scare tactics in Launceston and Tasmania? What has caused this transition to this abhorrent, populist nonsense?

It takes a special sort of bastardry to scare vulnerable people, but that is exactly what is happening with the mendacious claims of those opposite. Spare us your hypocrisy! Under this government pensions went up last Friday. They go up twice a year. It has gone up by over six per cent since this government was elected—up $78 for couples and over $50 for single pensioners per fortnight. They have also been able to maintain the carbon tax compensation payment at $14.10 for singles and $21.20 for couples. We got rid of the carbon tax, which those on the opposite side want to bring back. They want to continue to seize pensioners' dormant bank accounts. We on this side are the best friends that pensioners have ever had.

Photo of Bruce ScottBruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

I just remind the member for Bass that the use of one of the words in that address he just gave does not raise the standards in this place. I do not want to repeat the word, but I remind him for next time—and that applies to both sides of the chamber. If we want to raise the standards in this place, we should make sure that the language is appropriate and one that you would use in front of your own children.

3:56 pm

Photo of Joanne RyanJoanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I too am pleased to rise today to speak to this very important matter of public interest and to join my whip colleagues today. Those in the chamber may not have noticed that all three whips from this side of the House are speaking on the MPI today. It is a collegiate affair because all three of us are really concerned about the impacts this government's cruel budget is having all the way across Australia.

We have heard a lot today in this MPI from those opposite about a scare campaign and a fear campaign. I have a fairly important observation to share on the notion of a fear campaign. The first thing I would say to those opposite is that I did not need to contact a pensioner in my electorate the day after the budget. The pensioners in my community, particularly those on the disability support pension, are not fools. They are very insulted by the impugning that they are somehow foolish, that they are somehow gullible, that they somehow cannot think for themselves, and that they cannot tell the difference between a policy that will choose the higher increase to the pension and one that is fixed and fixed to what, over time—given past experience—will prove to be the lesser of the two. Pensioners are by no means fools. As we on this side of the House rightly know, they will campaign. They will stand up. They will watch a budget speech. They will read a budget. They will find out where the cruel cuts are coming from, as they did in May last year.

This cruel budget lives on beyond anyone's memory of the life of a budget—to month 11. It is six weeks out from the second budget and we are still talking about the cruel cuts in this budget. Today we on this side are talking to what that budget has in store for pensioners across this country. It is not good news. It is not good news at all. Professor Peter Whiteford, an independent analyst, says that the value of pensions will drop from 28 per cent of average weekly earnings today to 16 per cent of average weekly earnings in 2055.

I know many pensioners in my electorate, and I do not know any of them who would be comfortable in thinking that they are going to be living on 16 per cent of average weekly earnings. Of course, weekly earnings impact on the cost of things as well, so we can imagine that as time goes on, and if we continue on the never-ending increase of the CPI—if it continues to go up the way that it has—that their spending capacity will be very reduced.

In my electorate I have over 11,000 aged pensioners and I have 5,000 disability support pensioners, and I want to spend a bit of time speaking about them today. I want to tell the House, again, about Ms Wen Jian, who approached me days after this cruel budget. She is 46 years of age and she has lived 30 years suffering from rheumatoid arthritis. This is not a leaner; this is someone who worked in our community for as long as she could work with this debilitating disease and she now volunteers three days a week.

I heard the member for Shortland mention the value of volunteers—our pensioners—in the community. I would like those opposite to stop and to think about the unpaid labour they do in our community, how valuable they are to the Australian population and how valued they should be.

Of course, we heard a lot: from the very beginning the Treasurer talked about the 'age of entitlement'. I think the agenda here is to wipe out the 'age of dignity' for our aged pensioners, for a disability support pensioners and for our carers. On this side, we would like to see a reverse of these cuts. We ask the minister, please: go home tonight and study, practice and learn to roll his eyes! He could then go back to that razor gang, see if he could do a really good eye roll and get this cut reversed.

The pensioners of Australia will campaign with us and we will campaign with them every day until the next election to avoid these cruel cuts. You cannot pull the wool over pensioners eyes and you cannot pull the wool over our eyes.

4:01 pm

Photo of Fiona ScottFiona Scott (Lindsay, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise today to give assurance to my community that on Friday their pensions went up. In fact, under this government—the coalition government—their pensions rose by $51.80 per fortnight for singles and $78 for couples. So, let me tell the people of Lindsay and the pensioners of Lindsay: do not listen to the scare campaigns, because they are simply not true. On Friday, your pensions went up, and that is thanks to this government—$51.80 for singles and $78 for couples. That is the good news. Under this government, pensions have gone up by six percentage points. This is a government that cares about your future and this is a government that cares about the pensioners in Lindsay.

Let's talk about the facts. The total increase to the indexing pensions saw single age pensioners receive a $5.90 boost to their fortnightly payments or $153.40 a year. Couples will receive an extra $8.80 a fortnight or $228.80 per year. These increases will see the maximum age pension rise to $860.20 a fortnight for single pensioners and $1,296.80 for couples.

Those opposite are blatantly scaring and frightening pensioners right around our country. It is a shameful thing for them to do, because these are people who have served our country. These are people who have paid taxes for their entire lives, and that is why we are looking after them. That is why we are providing support to our pensioners.

Let us not forget that it is this coalition government that scrapped the carbon tax. On average, that is about $500 a year in savings to families right across Australia. But for pensioners, we ensured that we left the carbon tax compensation there. We believe that they deserved this increase. So, really, we can put together the increases that have happened. This has happened not once a year but twice a year; twice a year they have received increases in their pensions. With this, pensioners will be effectively better off each fortnight by $66 for singles and by almost $100 for couples.

These are great announcements—these are good things for pensioners. We are focused on serving pensioners. Let's remember that it was those opposite who looked at dormant bank accounts. They only had to be dormant for three years then in they went and stole all the money—they stole the money! Well, we will not be doing that. We will not be in there stealing the money from dormant bank accounts.

You need in the vicinity of $1.2 million to be a self-funded retiree, and there are a lot of people in the Lindsay community who really do work hard to ensure that they can be self-funded retirees. But, again, there are a lot of people who sit on part pensions. That is why we fought very hard to provide more equity when it comes to the deeming rates. The deeming rates are absolutely crucial, and that is why I am very proud to say that under this government the new deeming rates for part pensioners will mean an increase in their payments of $3.20 a fortnight or $83.20 a year. The lower deeming rate will decrease from two per cent to 1.75 per cent for financial investments up to $48,000 for single pensioners and allowees or $79,600 for pensioner couples and $39,800 for each member of an allowee couple. This is great news for those on a part pension.

The upper deeming rate will decrease from 3.5 per cent to 3.25 per cent for balances over these amounts. These payments show that the coalition understands the pressures facing pensioners, and that we have a plan to support pensioners with the rising cost of living and changing economic circumstances.

I have outlined, firstly, that pensions are going up and, secondly, that we are providing support through providing better deeming rates for those on part pensions. We have also scrapped the carbon tax, we have scrapped the mining tax and we are leaving that compensation in there to help pensioners with their cost of living. That is what is important.

Finally, we will not be raiding dormant bank accounts. We believe that pensioners have worked hard for their money and that they should keep their money there. We are not like those opposite, or the Leader of the Opposition, who are in there stealing people's bank accounts; we are actually—

Photo of Mark DreyfusMark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask that the member withdraw; I do not care what her speaking notes say, but that phrase is unparliamentary and she knows it.

4:06 pm

Photo of Ross VastaRoss Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I will ask the honourable member to withdraw that statement.

Photo of Sharon ClaydonSharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I withdraw, but we will ensure—

Photo of Mark DreyfusMark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | | Hansard source

No buts!

Photo of Sharon ClaydonSharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

that we leave that money in their bank accounts.

4:07 pm

Photo of Chris HayesChris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

We are fast approaching the 2015 budget. We are going to come back in a month's time, and we will see what this government is going to do then. But just remember: it has not sold the 2014 budget yet. Today the Prime Minister in question time wanted to assure the House, 'I have done the right thing for pensioners.' Well, let's just look at the track record. This is the same Tony Abbott who went to the last election saying, 'No cuts to health, no cuts to education, no cuts to pensions, no cuts to the ABC or SBS.' Which one did not get cut? All of them did. This is a perfect track record. Anywhere else, you would actually call this lies, but I will not do that, because I do not want to offend the House. But to come out and say something, to use the word of my friend from Bass, mendacious! To come out and give a misleading statement to pensioners, of all people—the people least able to actually weather these cuts!

We know there is an $80 billion cut to health and education. We know what occurred with ABC, so I do not need to go there. But what occurred with pensioners was a change to the indexation rate. It was actually designed to save money. The government say, 'We're going to adjust it twice annually,' but the Parliamentary Budget office belled the cat on this. It said that, between now and 2022, there will be a saving of $23 billion. So let's not gloss over this: this is actually a budget saving. That is why they changed the indexation rate. They are also going to claw back the relativity between pensions and wages from 28 per cent to 16 per cent, and they are saying: 'This is no cut. Nothing to see here. Move on.' But if you are living on a fixed income—if you are a pensioner—you cannot decide, 'Well, I'm going to go and work an extra night's shiftwork,' or, 'I'm going to take some overtime tomorrow to make up this difference.' You are on a fixed income of not much more than $20,000.

When you think about the government's intentions for health, we know what they want to do for health: they want to tax people every time they go to the GP. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to work out that it is going to be the aged pensioners who are going to disproportionately use the services of a general practitioner. They are the ones who are going to be slugged with increased taxes out of that.

This mob opposite want to talk about doing the right thing for pensioners. I wonder when they are going to start. It did not start in the 2014 budget. I know that Tony Abbott says that the 2015 budget is going to be dull and boring, but what are they going to do about this budget? Who are they going to attack? They have their hearts set on attacking pensioners.

Photo of Andrew NikolicAndrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, could the honourable member refer to the Prime Minister by his title, not his name.

Photo of Ross VastaRoss Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

That is correct. I will ask the honourable member for Fowler to please refer to the Prime Minister.

Photo of Chris HayesChris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I refer to the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, the person who has told those lies to pensioners—the person who actually got up there and promised before the last election—

Photo of Andrew NikolicAndrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, that is an unparliamentary term, and I ask the member to withdraw.

Photo of Chris HayesChris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

The Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, before the last election, went out and told pensioners there would be no cuts to pensions. If that is not a bald-faced lie, what is?

Photo of Andrew NikolicAndrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, he compounds his rookie error by repeating the term again.

Photo of Ross VastaRoss Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

If it assists the House, would the member for Fowler please withdraw.

Photo of Chris HayesChris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I will not call going out and telling pensioners before the last election, 'We are not going to touch pensions,' a lie. I withdraw that part. I know the truth hurts sometimes in this place, and sometimes you have to take some responsibility. He is going to actually stand up and deny the truth.

Photo of Andrew NikolicAndrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, I draw your attention to the fact that the honourable member, having withdrawn that claim, then said, 'The truth hurts,' which is a repetition of the same claim. I ask him to withdraw.

Photo of Ross VastaRoss Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

On that point, there is no point of order.

Photo of Chris HayesChris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Of course there is no point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We will give him a copy of the standing orders later. It will improve his education.

I have actually looked at a number of our colleagues over here; you would not be surprised. I have seen nothing in any of the publications they put out within their electorates that takes responsibility for cutting pensions. They are ashamed of this.

4:12 pm

Photo of Tony PasinTony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Excuse me if, having listened to the member for Jagajaga and the members for Richmond, Shortland, Lalor and Fowler, I feel like I have been flogged by a feather. Just a brief observation: you know an argument does not have a lot of punch when you have to invoke all three whips to speak. I think that is an example of the reality of this situation: that no-one on that side wants to own the member for Jagajaga's claim, which is born of an intention to scare the pensioners of Australia.

I know those opposite have spent time at the member for Lilley's special school for economics, but they really need to get over this idea that more means less, that less means more, that a budget surplus means a deficit and that a deficit means a surplus. We really need to get to the bottom of this, so let's have a think about what our government has done in the 18 months while we have been here with respect to pensions and pensioners.

Chronologically—because I find that easier—the first thing we did, of course, was to scrap the carbon tax. I will not go into any great detail about that, other than to say that those opposite, at the first practicable opportunity, will seek to re-establish that tax. However, in addition to scrapping the carbon tax, we kept the carbon tax compensation, meaning that the pensioners of Australia are $14.10 per fortnight better off for a single and $21.20 better off for a couple. For those opposite—those alumni of the Lilley school of special economics—that is more money in pensioners' pockets. It is $366.60 per annum for a single or $551.20 for a couple.

The next thing we did is that we maintained the very long tradition of twice-annual increases of the pension. Pensions went up in March 2014 and in September 2014. They went up again in March 2015—indeed, last Friday. That means that single pensioners in this nation are, as a result of those increases, $51.80 better off per fortnight, and a couple is $78 better off per fortnight. What does that mean in annualised figures? It means that a single person living on the full pension is $1,346.80 per annum better off, and couples are $2,028 per annum better off.

That is more, not less. I repeat it because I am worried for those opposite, who, as I have said, spent time studying at the member for Lilley school of economics. It is a six per cent increase over 18 months, far outstripping wage growth—six per cent in 18 months. It clearly exposes what we are seeing here as a false and misleading scare campaign. In addition to that—

Photo of Ross VastaRoss Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Order! I thank the honourable member for Barker. Unfortunately, the discussion has concluded.