Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Community Services, Indigenous Affairs and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Hansard source

I certainly do not want to be rude about the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, who is just following orders in this matter. Those orders, as we have seen frequently this year, are for ministers to make as many ministerial statements as possible in order to create the impression that this is a very busy government. But I want to say to the House—and I suspect from the Newspoll today that the Australian public want to say to the government—that making statements is not the same as solving problems. Talking is not acting. Announcing a review is not changing anything. Feeling our pain is not doing something about it, and featherweight ministerial statements such as the one we have seen today are no substitute for good government policy.

What have we actually heard from the minister today? Essentially, we have heard three points. The first is that the Labor Party somehow created the old age pension this country, even though it was actually instituted by the Deakin government. Alfred Deakin is one of the political and philosophical forebears of this party. In addition, what the Deakin government was doing was lifted from the early actions of Winston Churchill, no less, as part of the then British government. The second thing we heard from the minister is that the Labor Party is responsible for enshrining pensions as 25 per cent of average total male weekly earnings. In fact, under members opposite it was 25 per cent of average weekly earnings—quite different from male total average weekly earnings—and in any event it was the Howard government that ensured that this was a legislative requirement, not just something that was done at the whim of the government of the day. The final point that we heard from the minister opposite is that it was in fact her new government that has put $900 a year into the pockets of pensioners thanks to the budget. Let me just remind the minister that those particular policies were direct lifts—absolute direct steals—from the election policy announcements of the Howard government.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I put it to you, and through you to the Australian people: which government has given the best deal to pensioners—a government which keeps wages low and inflation high or a government which keeps wages high and inflation low? Let us look at the record. The Hawke government increased basic award wages by just one per cent. Under the life of the Hawke-Keating government, inflation averaged 5½ per cent. Under the Howard government, average weekly earnings were up by 22 per cent—a lot better than one per cent—and inflation averaged 2.5 per cent.

Let us look at the overall benefits that were delivered by the Howard government. According to the University of Canberra’s National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling figures, under the Howard government, thanks to changes to the tax system, the transfer system and the wage system, the bottom fifth of our country advanced their net financial position, their total annual income, by 24 per cent in real terms. So the bottom fifth were 24 per cent better off over the life of the Howard government. The top fifth were better off to the tune of 19 per cent under the Howard government. So, yes, the rich got richer under the Howard government but the poor got richer faster. In other words, the Howard government did a better deal for the pensioners of this country than it did for big business.

What did we hear from the minister at the table, the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs? We heard that there would be a review. Big deal—another review! And not only would there be a review but today she announced there would be a review within a review. Not only would Ken Henry, the departmental secretary to Treasury, do the review but there would be a subreview by Dr Harmer, the departmental secretary of her own department. Let me remind the minister opposite and the Australian public, including pensioners, that Dr Henry was the same person who wanted to take away the pensioners and carers bonus. He was the same person who wanted to see this thing cut from the budget and he is the person into whose care and consideration the pen-sioners and carers of this country are now delivered. Let me also point out to pensioners of this country that a $500 bonus built into the basic rate of pension means less than $500 for part-pensioners and for seniors. Let there be no doubt among the pensioners of this country that building the bonus into the base rate of pension means less money for part-pensioners and for seniors.

Let us look not at what this government says but at what this government does. Almost the first action of this government was to take away the Medicare dental scheme, which was benefiting tens of thousands of people, mostly pensioners. I say to members opposite: if they have something that is really worth saying, say it, but, if they do not have something that is really worth saying, do not waste the time of the parliament with empty statements, particularly in a week when they claim they need to pass 22 bills. This is a statement that was not worth making. It is a statement which, frankly, has wasted the time of the parliament today.

See this speech in context