Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Crosswalk attendants—we see them every day but they are invisible. They guarantee the safety of our children but we fail to see them beyond stopping for an anonymous flag. They safeguard our children every day but we do not really see them at all. What drives these people to this onerous task? They choose—and it is not just a choice but a commitment—to contribute their time to ensure the safety of Australian children. In return for a low wage, they turn up every day to make sure our children are safe. They launder their uniforms and use their own cars to get to work. It is 40 degrees in the shade and they are working. It is freezing cold and pouring with rain but still they are working. They are among the many heroes in our society, but how do we thank them? Do we cheer their contribution to society? No. We hit them with punitive taxes. Senior citizens—and that is what most of them are—who put up their hand to aid the society they helped create just get a kick in the teeth. For such charitable acts, we penalise these people already left on a pension which even the Prime Minister says he could not live on. We are putting the boot into these people who simply want to help. They are just an example of the utter contempt with which the government treats our senior citizens.

With the baby boomers entering retirement, we have a huge pool of skills, but instead of tapping it the government seeks only to tap its income. What is the incentive to contribute when the small amount you earn results in a reduction in an already insufficient pension? Retirees who simply want to help are penalised. They must pay for the privilege of contributing to society. Something has gone very wrong when we as a nation tell our senior citizens that we do not want their help, that we want to stick them out back till their time comes. There should be no penalty for wanting to contribute to society. There should be no penalty for being an older Australian. But the sad fact is, under the current government, being an older Australian marks you out for abuse at the hands of the state. With a pension that no-one could realistically expect to live on, with benefits that are steadily being eroded, our senior citizens are truly hurting. Next year, even those who had the foresight and capacity to plan for their retirement will feel the wrath of an uncaring government. Superannuation payments will be treated as income for the first time, meaning that many self-funded retirees will miss out on basic benefits such as subsidised medicine.

I am not talking about ultrawealthy seniors of the sort who move in the Prime Minister’s circle. These are everyday people who are just getting by. They get a pittance from the country they helped to build, they get hit for expenses they have been told were covered and, when they have the temerity to try to contribute further to society, they are forced to hand over the petty sums they earn. This is not government; it is highway robbery. We must ask ourselves who in society is most deserving. Can anyone say that the elderly do not warrant our respect and gratitude? Why then does the government seek to penalise them for simply getting old? Rather than forcing people who have already made decades of contribution to the wealth of this country do full-time work, perhaps we should be looking at a variety of solutions to help those mostly older Australians to remain active and engaged in the workforce without expecting them to work full time. But this requires a caring and sensible approach. The challenge I lay down to this government is to understand the dedication and commitment of these Australians and make the necessary changes to enable them to continue making a valuable contribution to our society without being unfairly financially penalised. Is this government up to such a challenge? My constituents and I sincerely hope so. I urge all members to support this motion to deliver some justice to those who created the great society we all live in today.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must say that I have never heard such hypocrisy in my entire life. The member for Tangney stands up, wrings his hands and makes the statements that he has just made, and yet he was in a government that was in power in Australia from 1996 to 2007 and that sat on its hands and did absolutely nothing. When during that time did he stand up and make a speech like this for the pensioners of his area? And he does not even stay to listen to the whole of the debate; he is leaving. Most members who move a private member’s motion will stay to hear what contributions are made by the other members.

Like the opposition’s proposal to lift the rate of the single age pension, this motion ignores carers, people on the disability support pension and widows of veterans. All of these pensions are subject to taper rates. Once again, the member is selectively choosing what to discuss. He must have had some sort of brain explosion the other day when a constituent came to see him and raised this issue. Prior to that, it seems to me that he was totally unaware of it. We on this side of the House are aware of these types of issues. We were aware of them when the opposition was in government. They are not something new.

There are now 732,000 DSP recipients, 133,000 carer payment recipients, 35,000 wife and widow pensioners, 120,000 DVA service pensioners and 96,000 DVA partners. Where were these mentioned in the member for Tangney’s contribution to the debate? Increasing the taper rate will mean that more people will get access to concessions such as the utility allowance, the telephone allowance and pensioner transport and other concessions. However, increasing the taper rate for age pensioners will only discriminate against those groups of people that I have already mentioned as they miss out on these concessions. That shows the very narrow focus of the member for Tangney. Does the opposition think that carers, DSP recipients and widows are doing it less tough than age pensioners? Do they think that it is easy for them? Do they think that they should be ignored? We on this side do not believe in discriminating against people who are on the same sorts of benefits. But the member for Tangney had a constituent come to see him and for the first time in his life he decided that he would stand up for the pensioners in his area—in a way that he did not when he was in government.

Like the proposal to lift the single age pension, this is badly thought through. The Liberals had 12 long years to fix the pensions system, including by increasing the taper rate on all pensions, but they did nothing. Twelve long years of sitting on their hands, and all of a sudden they have discovered that pensioners are doing it hard. My mum is a pensioner, and I know that she does it hard. I know that her friends do it hard. It is not something that I have discovered just recently. That is why we are conducting a review to make sure that all pensioners, not just the ones those on the other side seek to favour, have their pensions looked at properly.

It is motions such as this that prove why it is necessary to fix the pensions system at the grassroots. It is imperative that you do not approach it in an ad hoc way. The government is determined to do this to make sure that nobody misses out. Hundreds of submissions are being made to the government’s review about how the system should be improved. Those views need to be given the attention that they deserve. When the review is complete, the government will act swiftly to fix the pensions system—unlike the previous government, which sat on their hands for 12 long years. As you well know, Acting Deputy Speaker Kelvin Thomson, this ad hoc approach, this political grandstanding, is not an answer for pensioners in Australia. We need a real solution and the Rudd government will deliver that. (Time expired)

Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the outset, I thank the member for Tangney for bringing this motion. I think the member for Shortland was a little misguided as to the intent of this motion, because my understanding is that it is a motion to lift the amount that an age pensioner can earn from productive employment to an amount equivalent to the senior Australians tax offset before applying a penalty that reduces the age pension—that is what this is about. The argument about single pensions is probably for another day, but I will have something to say about that if time permits. So I defend the member for Tangney’s proposition.

The coalition has proved that it is prepared to take a leading role in addressing the grave concerns many Australians have about the adequacy of the age pension. We as a party are aware of the hardships being faced by some of these men and women. I am sure the member for Tangney is well acquainted with those problems—he probably was before he was elected to this place, and he certainly has been since. These are the men and women who fought to make Australia the great country that it is, only to be let down badly by the Rudd government, which is fixated on having talkfests instead of initiating immediate financial relief for pensioners and self-funded retirees.

We have to look at this in the context of the steeply rising cost of living that has been evident since the Rudd government took office. This motion makes a lot of sense, and such a policy would be a step toward greater equality for pensioners, who often seem to be an afterthought for the current government. Australians are now living longer than they ever have before, with an average age now of 82 years. Our quality of life is also better than it ever has been before, and people can expect to have a very good quality of life at 70 and beyond, which is something that we had not seen in past generations.

Anyone who read today’s Australian would have seen the story of Joseph Ciampa. I do not know Mr Ciampa, but I am in awe of him because the article said that at the age of 91 he is about to receive his first PhD. He is now planning to complete a masters in philosophy. This well highlights the fact that we have some very great minds and very great skills out there that go underutilised because we seem to put some kind of limit on the useful contribution people can make as they get older. Mr Ciampa is living proof that getting older does not mean you cannot be productive and make a contribution.

The late American publisher Katharine Graham had the right idea when she said, ‘No-one can avoid ageing, but ageing productively is something else.’ Many senior citizens of this country—and the member for Tangney highlighted those people who man crosswalks, for example—deserve the opportunity to be productive for as long as they want and for as long as they are physically and mentally able. They do not want handouts; they just want a fair go. They most certainly do not want to be discouraged from contributing to society and their local communities for fear of having their pension cut because they have earnt a little extra income in the productive workforce.

There is a significant economic equation to the motion. The Labor government has spoken previously on boosting Australia’s productive capacity, while the shortage of skilled labourers is Australia has been well documented. The Rudd government’s May budget stated:

The ultimate test of economic reforms is in their effect on the wellbeing of the Australian people. A more efficient economy, with high levels of productivity and participation, provides the means to deliver higher incomes and a more equitable society.

So supporting seniors who want to remain in the workforce on a part-time basis provides an opportunity to increase economic efficiency with higher levels of productivity and participation by seniors, which also provides them with a far better sense of contribution and a far better quality of life. We know that people who are fully engaged are less likely to have illness. It seems to keep people well. The skills and abilities of seniors should be valued and utilised while at the same time helping them to live a little more independently.

The coalition will continue to examine ways to provide the best possible assistance to those who are amongst the most vulnerable in our society. This motion, along with the coalition’s decision to increase the single age pension, is part of the first steps to help those who are vulnerable.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This motion is a stunt—pure and simple. When I was at Riverview for their community festival on Sunday, doing a mobile office, the age pensioners and the disability support pensioners who came to me talked about the stunts of the new opposition leader, and they are aware that this motion is simply a stunt. If this was Liberal Party policy we would have seen it at least once in the last 12 years. I would like to see the private member’s bill that the member put up. But 16,070 pensioners in my electorate are being ignored by this motion. It is a fact: there are 1,144 carers, 7,491 people on disability support pensions and 7,435 pensioner couples who would probably be ignored by this sort of motion.

It is interesting that we see this new-found compassion from those opposite after 11 years. Where was the fair go in the workforce? Where was the fair go for pensioners during that time? We have not seen it. In fact, pensioners are much better off under this government. We understand the financial pressures that working families have, we understand the pressures that carers have and we understand the pressures that pensioners have. We understand and we are committed to helping seniors to meet the ever rising cost of living that was bequeathed to us on 24 November last year.

We have done more in the last nine months than we have seen for years under the coalition. We have given the $500 bonus as the previous government did but we have increased the utilities allowance to $500 and paid it in quarterly instalments. They could give only a measly $107. We have made sure seniors card holders can access travel concession on public transport anywhere in Australia. We have delivered on so many of our commitments, including extending the utilities allowance to many people, including disability support pensioners. These are modest measures, we accept, but they do help pensioners with cost of living pressures and they are a start. I can assure the constituents in my electorate that I understand where they are coming from because I grew up in a home which was a battling home as well. I can assure you that I am committed to their long-term financial security, as are so many people on this side of the chamber.

The inquiry that we have set up by Harmer and by Henry will go a long way to a root and branch amelioration of the problems we faced in the tax system and in the pension system for so long. That inquiry will be responded to by the government and will be reported back to by February next year. Getting the priorities right is crucial for the government. It is crucial that we get everything right. It is not the ad hockery that we saw for so many years. It is important that the people in my electorate understand that the government is committed to assisting them and providing for financial security.

It really distresses me to see the sort of motion we have seen tonight. It really is disingenuous for them to get up here after so many years sitting on the government benches. To think that all of a sudden they can do this sort of thing and think that the people of Australia will accept that this is a fair dinkum approach. They could have done so much for so long but they did not provide the long-term support, certainty and security that pensioners need. The bonuses were a help but they were not factored in year after year. They were done with election commitments in mind and they were done with the election facing the government. They were all a matter of getting through the political cycle, and that is what it is about. It is not about improving the pension system; it is not about improving long-term security for people; it is about providing for a political fix. That is what this is about. All pensioners in my electorate are doing it tough and they know they are. We have seen the rising cost of living. That has been happening for some time.

It is interesting that when it comes to pensions it was Labor governments that made such a difference—the Curtin government, the Chifley government, the Whitlam government. A former federal member for my electorate, Bill Hayden, did so much for the pensioners of this country when he was social security minister. It has been Labor governments that have shown a commitment to those in need, whereas coalition governments have ignored those who have been battling for so long. You can go through one after another: the widows pension that was brought in under the Curtin government, child endowment, extensions for supporting parents during the Whitlam government, wife allowances, mothers benefit. It has been Labor governments which have done all this. Coalition governments have ignored the needs of my electorate in terms of infrastructure and pensioners and their entitlements, and I condemn the member for what he has done.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the current plight facing Australia’s pensioners and I thank the member for Tangney for bringing forward this motion. In its first 10 months, the Rudd government has ignored senior Australians and, as in so many other areas of government, it has been all talk and no action. But talk offers little solace to single age pensioners, who are doing it extremely tough at the moment. They are doing it so tough that the Prime Minister and most of his front bench have said that they could not survive on $281 a week, yet they have done nothing. They have said, ‘You hang on for another 12 months while we finish an inquiry.’ Single age pensioners, including over 6,000 in my own electorate of Goldstein, who currently receive just $281 a week are facing increasing cost-of-living pressures—food, petrol, often rent or rates, and it goes on. That is why the coalition is advocating a $30 a week increase to single age pensioners by introducing legislation titled Urgent Relief for Single Age Pensioners Bill 2008 into the Senate to allow this increase to happen. This immediate additional payment will be for recipients of the single age pension, recipients of the widow B pension and recipients of the single age service pension. It is a test for Labor parliamentary members to show where they stand on the dignity of so many senior Australians. We are giving members of the Labor government the opportunity to put their money where their mouths are.

Since coming to office, Mr Rudd has announced some 170 reports, reviews, committees and commissions. Pensioners will now have to wait for yet another one before Mr Rudd takes any action. Australia’s single age pensioners need this increase and they need it now, not in a year’s time. Despite Mr Rudd’s claims that the government assisted older Australian in the budget by paying a one-off bonus, it must be remembered, despite the rhetoric of the previous speaker, that this was the bonus that Mr Rudd was planning to scrap before succumbing to pressure from both the coalition and pension groups. It is troubling to think of what position senior Australians would find themselves in today if Mr Rudd had had his way and the bonus had been scrapped.

In government, the coalition—again, despite the nonsense spoken by the previous member—was able due to strong economic management to pay a dividend to improve the financial position of pensioners. This was after paying off Labor’s $96 billion of debt. We increased pensions at two per cent a year above the rate of inflation. We introduced the utilities allowance to assist pensioners with the cost of utilities bills such as gas and electricity. We introduced the non-taxable $500 bonus payment annually. We introduced a 30 per cent private health insurance rebate to ease the financial pressures on pensioners, which Labor voted against. Labor’s proposed changes to the Medicare levy surcharge threshold will further hurt pensioners by forcing up premiums for private health insurance—so much for compassion.

We also legislated that the age pension be set to at least 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings or increased by the CPI, whichever is greater. As a result, the maximum single rate pension is now $72.80 a fortnight higher than it would have been otherwise. Partnered pensioners are now better off by $122.60 every fortnight than they would have been under Labor’s ad hoc approach to increasing pensions. To further encourage workplace participation, we increased the amount of age pension a part-time pensioner receives above the income test free area by reducing the pension income test withdrawal rate from 50c in the dollar to 40c and we halved the assets test taper rate from $3 to $1.50 per fortnight for each $1,000 of assets above the allowable asset limits—a whole host of things which improved the lot of Australia’s seniors.

Instead of offering token sympathy, Mr Rudd must start offering solutions and delivering on them now. There is no reason why the government could not take some immediate action while continuing with their longer term review. In its first budget, the Rudd government, backed by a $21 billion surplus inherited from the coalition, delivered increased taxes and spending and even a politically motivated slush fund, but failed to deliver for pensioners. Something must be done, they are a group who have done so much to build our country and we owe them a great deal.

Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a real pleasure for me to speak on this particular motion tonight. It is interesting that about a month ago in this chamber I presented a petition about pensions and a whole range of issues around them. A number of the members have mentioned tonight that we hear every day about the concerns raised by pensioners and for us to debate about this tonight across this chamber is certainly of interest. I think the member for Tangney is well intentioned in his motion but what some of the speakers, certainly on the opposition side, have spoken about tonight does not really get to the heart of what I understand his motion to be. As speakers on this side of the chamber have stated, unfortunately a lot of it is misinformed. A lot of the concern about what this motion is about and what pensioners can and cannot do is not explained.

About two weeks ago there was a whole lot of media coverage around some statements that I made and there was certainly a move by the opposition and others to drive a wedge by saying that I somehow was going against the statements of my own government or Prime Minister. I am here tonight to say that is just not true. If you look at the statements that I made they were very similar to the statements that we are making here tonight about the need to understand and consider pensioners generally.

This particular motion is a very important one when we are talking about those who have the ability to earn further income, particularly those who have got to the stage of being able to retire, take on a pension at 65 and continue to work. The problem is that I do not believe that it goes far enough. Again, my statements of only a couple of weeks ago that led people to suggest that there was some dissension within our government were essentially what we are saying on both sides of this chamber tonight. There is not enough information for us right now to make any definitive statements about what we should or should not do with pensioners. Even in the debate tonight people are coming up with different understandings about this motion and the concerns that pensioners have. I want to speak about a particular pensioner in my electorate who is certainly of a senior age but still has the capacity to work. In South-East Queensland and Queensland generally we have a major skill shortage. There are many people who have appropriate and professional skills and who are able to re-enter the workforce but many of those have come to me and said: ‘The rules around pensions are really tough. We can’t earn more money simply because of the rules.’

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I recognise the agreement of those on the other side of the chamber. It is something that we all understand as members but, unfortunately, it was the previous government that did not change the rules. That is something that I am bringing forward tonight—my understanding of where we need to go. The concerns raised in the media two weeks ago and my petition of four weeks ago were essentially saying that we need to make some decisions very quickly about how we are going to resolve this. It does not mean that we are looking at one-off payments, the $30 increase. I think we all understand that economically and financially it is just not the right way to go. We must understand what we need to do to better service pensions.

We have announced the Harmer review, the Henry review and ways of looking at the overall taxation system and how payments can be made not only to pensioners but to other people in need in our society. That review has to go ahead. I know that the new Leader of the Opposition is talking about his own review. Understandably, he wants to be able to come up with some definitive statements as well about what we need to do for pensioners, but the reality is, as a government, we have committed to making some change. We have committed to understanding more about the overall pension and taxation system. No decisions can be made until we really understand the money that comes in and the money that needs to go out in payments. The constituent I mentioned previously came to me and said he was willing to work, to come back into the workforce, but the incentives were not there. We do need to recognise that. We need to understand how much we might be seen to be advantaging certain people who can work over people who are taking benefit in other forms of payments who may be able to do some work or none at all. It is simply about understanding our overall position.

In summary, I commend the member for Tangney for bringing this to our attention. I think there probably needs to be a lot more thought go into what this motion is all about. What we are saying on this side of the House is: stand by our review, and please support us in it. The review will certainly tell us a lot about the system of taxation, the excise and all the other payments that come into our funds and how we then redistribute those. Pensions are certainly right at the core of our support for those people in our community.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.