Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you. To recap briefly: Matthews was an inquiry into indexation methodology for Commonwealth superannuation. Harmer was a review of base income support payments—the payments people rely on to survive. These are the essential payments that are required to give people a chance to have a reasonable living standard. That inquiry at that time made it very clear that those payments ought to be indexed to MTAWE or CPI or PBLCI.

That is the difference; it is a very important difference. They basically date to the same time and they make a very clear point about why you would make a difference. The fact that the government had a commitment to index DFRB and DFRDB is recognised. It was not supported by us when we were in government as it was not supported by those opposite previously when their party was in government. However, when the legislation came through just a few weeks ago we supported it.

Then in the shadow of that, the government removed that level of what they called and characterised as 'fair indexation' away from everybody else. That is some 280,000 who will lose access to that fair indexation system at a cost that I believe has been estimated at something like $65.1 billion in the 10 months of the last year of the forward estimates, which would equate to something like more than $78 million over a full year at that start. And, as we know with these things, that would grow exponentially over time if anything like the past history of MTAWE versus CPI actually occurs.

That is why what the government has done is incredibly unfair, and I would love to hear what the rationale is. But to quote back to the opposition what was said about Commonwealth superannuation with respect to the review that was done by Matthews and to try and suggest that it is the same as base income support payments is ridiculous and, frankly, will not bear consideration and review within the court of public opinion. But to quote back to the opposition what was said about Commonwealth superannuation with respect to the review that was done by Matthews, and to try and suggest that that is the same as base income support payments, is ridiculous. And frankly, it will not bear consideration and review within the court of public opinion. And believe me, Minister, this will be tested in the court of public opinion.

Minister, you have seen those campaigns run in the past, and you know the sort of impact that that will have within the broader veteran community. The government really needs to get away from just saying, 'You said this,' about something which is not strictly the same, and actually justify taking so much money from so many in the veteran community—the very people whose payments, just a matter of weeks ago, they said ought to be treated as being special, and ought to be treated fairly.

See this speech in context