Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise on behalf of the 2,742 pensioners living in public housing in my seat of Banks to support the private member's motion proposed by the member for Parramatta. In September 2009 the Labor government delivered the biggest increase to the pension in its history and delivered a fairer system that made sure the pension kept up with living costs. Since 2009 Labor has increased the maximum rate pension by $154 a fortnight for singles and $156 a fortnight for couples combined. The 22,800 pensioners living in Banks have received a lump sum payment from the federal government over the past few weeks of $250 for singles and $380 for couples. Pensioners will also get a permanent boost to their regular payments in March next year. In total, single pensioners are receiving an extra $338 a year and couples are receiving an extra $510 a year combined. This includes people in the local community receiving age, disability and carer pensions, as well as veterans' income support recipients.

Pensioners in public housing in New South Wales pay 25 per cent of their pension as rent. We have recently heard the announcement by the New South Wales government that it is its intention to increase public housing rents. This federal government, a Labor government, delivered the increase as a separate pension supplement so it would not be included when the state government calculated public housing rents, which has been the accepted practice for many years. The New South Wales Liberal government's decision means a maximum rate single pensioner will now pay an extra $84.50 a year in rent. I have to ask myself where the local state members for Oatley and East Hills were when this decision was proposed. This increase was imposed and, at the same time, they crow about what they have done for their electorates since the election—much of which was misleading because it was Commonwealth money. That is now evident—it has been completed—but they claim credit for it. In reality, when it counted, they could not genuinely assist the vulnerable in their electorates because they were missing in action. We must not forget that it has been the Labor government that have taken the lead in introducing profound social security reform. The conservative side of politics has no such proud history—rather, the contrary.

The reason this is a pernicious grab—theft—by the state Liberal government is that the supplement that has been given to pensioners in public housing is to offset and to compensate for increases that they may pay as a result of the introduction of the carbon tax. It is not a situation where we are looking at increases as a result of CPI. In the past, the net result has been that 25 per cent of those increases are grabbed by the state government in relation to public housing rent. What you are going to have here is a situation where pensioners in public housing are actually going to be worse off because they are going to have the impost of costs that flow from the introduction of the carbon tax—we have said that from day one; we have been honest—but they are also going to cop that 25 per cent increase on that extra money that they have got with the state government increasing their housing rent.

That is theft, in my mind. That is why it was made a supplement. It is not a net increase per se; it is an increase given to them to offset perceived and actual costs in the future. Who pays? The most vulnerable in our community, those on disability support and carers pension, pensioners themselves—not the rich, not the people not in public housing. There are many who are not living in public housing that the state government cannot reach out to. But, you see, this is the Liberal formula: go after the vulnerable and have your middle-class, upper-middle-class and business welfare. That is what makes this increase by the state government so pernicious. We are not talking about a CPI increase that is flowing on to pensioners; we are talking about a supplement given to them to compensate, and they are copping it in the neck on top. The state Liberal government should desist.

What else did they do it in relation to the budget? Ten thousand Public Service jobs are to go. That is also the future under the current opposition at a federal level if they actually get government. This is a portent of what will come in the future. (Time expired)

See this speech in context