Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support this motion on the indexation of United Kingdom pensions. It is only fair that I do so, because of the number of immigrants from the United Kingdom who have retired or settled in Gilmore. The decision of the United Kingdom to freeze the indexation of British pensions in Australia is an unfortunate one. The Australian government readily accepted reciprocal arrangements and still do, but this decision is one that is beyond any influence of ours. Without being seen as being too parochial, in terms of fairness and equity I believe these British pensioners have been ‘dudded’.

The Australian government has, for a number of years, called on the United Kingdom to increase, in line with inflation, the retirement pensions of British pensioners who live overseas, including in Australia. The Australian government, at the highest levels, takes every opportunity to raise this matter with the United Kingdom government. In early 2006 the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the Hon. Mal Brough MP, wrote to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Rt Hon. John Hutton MP, asking him to look afresh at the merits of the United Kingdom government’s position. The response was that the United Kingdom government has no intention of changing their existing policy, because of the cost.

As the majority of member countries of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, CHOGM, are not adversely affected by this policy, I am advised we do not believe they would support raising this issue or supporting the Australian position if it were raised at CHOGM. Despite this, I believe that October’s CHOGM this year provides the ideal opportunity to put the issue on the table to end the unfairness inherent in the approach by the government of the United Kingdom.

I understand also that a consortium of pensioners is taking action against the United Kingdom government on this matter in the European Court of Human Rights. The case is expected to be heard later this year. Like all of the United Kingdom pensioners in Australia, I am hopeful that the court in Strasbourg will find in favour of the pensioners.

In 2005 a British expatriate living in South Africa, Mrs Annette Carson, mounted a legal challenge in the High Court in England. The case was dismissed. The British tabloid the Daily Telegraph says that, despite making full national insurance contributions throughout her working life, Mrs Carson’s pension will never rise above £103.62 because she lives in South Africa. If she returned to Britain, it would be instantly raised. Mrs Carson said:

I can only say that from my point of view it is heartbreaking news for all the very elderly pensioners who are in countries like South Africa and especially Zimbabwe who can not make ends meet. They have difficulty feeding themselves and providing medicine when they are sick. They have been hoping that their position might be alleviated by the House of Lords and they have all been let down.

The Daily Telegraph also reported that the relevant Australian minister at that time, Senator Kay Patterson, exploded when asked to comment on the dismissal of the Carson appeal. ‘I am appalled,’ she protested. ‘I am outraged. How can this happen in a democracy? How can you justify penalising contributors to a mandatory pension scheme? It is morally indefensible.’

Another Australian based expatriate who has been leading the campaign for pension parity, Jim Tilley of Sydney, is also concerned at the ‘apparent bias’ of the judiciary during the Carson case and subsequent appeal. ‘What the judges seem to be saying,’ he complained, ‘is that although the frozen pension policy is discriminatory, it cannot be changed because of what they claim to be the daunting cost to the government.’ Mr Tilley reports that more than 160,000 British expatriates now depend on their Australian entitlement because they can no longer survive on their United Kingdom pensions. ‘The immoral cost to Australia now exceeds $A100 million or £40 million a year,’ he says.

In my mind, I am content that Australia is actively pursuing with the UK government the issue of pension indexation for UK citizens living in Australia and that it will continue to work with the UK government to attempt to resolve this issue. In pursuit of this objective, we welcome efforts by UK pensioners to raise awareness among British parliamentarians of the anomalies in the payment of UK pensions abroad.

There is an inequity and injustice existing that needs to be righted here and we are doing our level best to do that. As long as the British government persists in denying justice to its expatriates, it brings into question the sense of natural justice inherent in British law which has sustained its democracy for a millennium.

If CHOGM does not afford us the window of opportunity we are seeking, we should give consideration to supporting the two Australian frozen pension organisations—the Sydney based British Pensions in Australia group and the Adelaide based British Australian Pensioners Association, who have indicated that they plan to pursue the case. There is no doubt that the British government needs to be lobbied and the best people to do that are the relatives of the British expatriates in Australia and other countries. Despite our very best intentions, we cannot do this alone and need the support of their relatives living in the United Kingdom. We must persist until justice is done. I wish to assure my constituents that I will continue to fight against this injustice. I wish to thank them for the excellent citizens they have become in Australia and how positively they have contributed to the welfare of our nation.

See this speech in context