Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Senator Evans) to questions without notice asked by Senators Bernardi and Ryan today relating to pensions.

I am at a loss. What yesterday was a ‘political stunt’ and what has been a ‘political stunt’ for several months is good policy today. Those on the other side are taking a lesson in ‘Political Backflip 101’. The Rudd government has consistently, over the past few months, refused the opposition’s heed to ease the plight of pensioners and increase the single age pension. Those on the other side of the chamber have repeatedly referred to the opposition’s calls to give pensioners a fair go as a ‘political stunt’. This is despite members of the government themselves, including the Prime Minister, admitting that it would be almost impossible to continue to live on the current single age pension. Let us not forget what Mr Rudd himself said, as reported in an article on page 12 of the Age on Wednesday 10 September 2008: ‘Living on the single age pension is very, very tough.’

This is a government that went to the election last year promising to ease the cost of living for all Australians, including pensioners. What did they do weeks ago, when given an opportunity by those on this side of the chamber to address the issue and to bring some relief to pensioners? They did nothing. But, worse than that, the response that we received from them was that what we proposed was a political stunt. Only last week, Mr Rudd further dampened the hopes of pensioners in relation to any potential increase, saying that the federal government may not be able to afford extra payments now due to the effects of the global credit crisis. What we have today, however, is a political backflip, an adoption by the government of the coalition’s policy to ease the plight of pensioners. We now have Mr Rudd saying that this package is necessary to underpin positive economic growth and to stave off the effects of the global credit crunch. Yet, in an interview with Laurie Oakes on the Channel 9 Sunday morning news on Sunday 5 October, when Laurie Oakes put to the Deputy Prime Minister the following:

Wouldn’t a quicker and more efficient way of stimulating the economy be to give more money to pensioners because they have got no choice, they’ve got to spend it?

And then:

Why not give them money now, stimulate the economy and let them live decently?

The Deputy Prime Minister said in response:

We’ve got the Harmer process and we intend for the Harmer process to come to its conclusion.

But now, only nine days later, we are told that the package is necessary to underpin positive economic growth and stave off the effects of the global credit crunch. Let us call it what it really is: a political backflip and an adoption by the government of the coalition’s good economic policy. Those on this side of the chamber have repeatedly called on the government to do something about the plight of pensioners. We have been debating this point at length. Whilst the Rudd government stalled with another review into pensions, we showed leadership and we acted. What did those on the other side do when we acted? They tried to vote down our piece of good economic policy. Every Labor Senator voted against stimulating the economy by providing relief to pensioners. But, worse than that, they belittled what the coalition put forward as ‘a stunt’. It is very clear what has happened. The Rudd government has run out of ideas and now it needs to steal from this side of the chamber.

Here they go again. They borrowed from us during the last election campaign and they are now adopting our policy. But we are not jealous with our economic expertise. The Leader of the Opposition, with his experienced team behind him, has already publicly offered to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer several more practical and effective economic measures to deal with the current economic crisis. Those opposite would do well to work with us during this difficult time. Like all senators on this side, I am watching to see what other coalition measures the Rudd government will adopt to steer Australia through the challenging days ahead.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I start my contribution with great disappointment because I thought Senator Cash’s contribution was going to get better. But I am still waiting. It did not get better. Senator Cash, that was absolutely shocking!

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Sterle, I think you should address your remarks to the chair.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through you, Mr Deputy President, I reiterate that that was terrible. I would like to take note of the question by Senator Bernardi to the minister. I find it absolutely offensive when those on the other side of the chamber get up and thank us for adopting their policy.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is exactly what happened.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann, if your mob had got what they liked, only single pensioners would have got $30. What about couples? What would they have got?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We shamed you into it, and you know it.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann, what would—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I think we will have a little bit of decorum.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann—through you, Mr Deputy President—if we had adopted your policy, what would we do for couples?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We shamed you into it, and you know it.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We would not have worried about couples if you had had your way. You mentioned nothing about couples over on that side of the chamber—absolutely nothing!

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Cormann, you will cease interjecting. Senator Sterle, I remind you that you do not make your remarks ‘through’ the chair, you make them ‘to’ the chair.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I will continue my remarks to the chair. As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted by Senator Cormann, if we had adopted the Liberal’s policy of $30 for singles, what would we tell the married couples, those pensioners who are just as much in need of extra money in their hand for their weekly costs? What would we have told carers? They were not on the radar; carers did not matter to the Liberals. It was a stunt. Let us call it what it is. It was a stunt. It was not even a cunning stunt. It was just a poor stunt. And they disregarded not only couples and carers—what would we have done for widows if we had adopted the Liberal’s policy? Oh, of course, they were not on the radar either! When you were running off with your stunt, widows did not get a mention. And what about those on the disability pension? Oh, you forgot about them too, did you? You only thought about this stunt: $30 for a single pensioner—and, all of a sudden, you people are the gurus, the experts, to save the pensioners! They had 11½ years. What did they do for pensioners in 11½ years? They come into this chamber and look for cheap shots like $30 for just the single pensioners—no-one else mattered. Thank goodness we did not even listen to your stunt.

I would like to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Treasurer on the Economic Security Strategy. Let us have a look at exactly what it delivers. It delivers $10.4 billion where it should be going. For all those years, we heard about the surplus. Surpluses are good. Let us make no mistake about that. We have built on the surplus with our budget announcements. I am sure that all Australians will agree with me that it is all very well having a surplus but if you do not spend it where it is needed you should be ashamed of yourself—and the Rudd government will spend it where it is desperately needed.

There is $10.4 billion in our Economic Security Strategy. The strategy includes five key measures, and I would like to go through them. There is $4.8 billion as an immediate down-payment on long-term pension reform. Are you listening over there, senators opposite? It is long term—not just one stunt between now and Christmas. There is $3.9 billion in support payments for low- and middle-income families—another group that did not even come onto the opposition’s radar when they were pulling this stunt. There is a $1.5 billion investment to help first home buyers. There was no mention of that in your stunt! There is $187 million to create 56,000 new training positions. You lot absolutely wrecked training over the years that you were in government. You sat here and watched over the greatest skills shortage in this country since Federation. Do not deny it. I am not hearing a word from senators opposite, because it is true. You know it is true, Senator Cormann, because you come from WA, where the skills shortage is biting. (Time expired)

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of Senator Cash’s motion. Before I move on to my comments I would like to respond to a couple of things raised by Senator Sterle. We have heard again from the government benches the only argument the government has ever been capable of mounting against the opposition’s promise to raise pensions by $30 per week—that is, simply: you are not doing everything, so we, being the government, will do nothing. It has no other argument and no other reason for opposing this, which it has done for months now. Senator Sterle raised the 56,000 training positions. It is interesting that that number almost matches the forecast increase in unemployment that this government has outlined in its own budget. So the training positions do not even cover the number of people whom this government is putting out of a job.

The opposition supports the increase in pension support that was announced by the Prime Minister today, but it is important to note that it was done under sufferance, it was done late and it provides pensioners with no security through a long-term commitment that will see their pension rate increase. The government, like many of its state counterparts, also seems to believe that saying something often enough makes it true. It does not. It is important to outline exactly what the coalition achieved when it was in government. We introduced the utilities allowance. We increased the pension by 24 per cent in real terms and 57 per cent in nominal terms and we linked it to 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings so that, as the economy grew and earnings grew, the pension went up with them.

I can understand why the government do not raise this nor seem to care about it, because wage growth is not something that seems to coincide with Labor governments. It was around one per cent in Labor’s last decade in office. The government in this place have defined tackling the pension problem as setting up a review. Today they talk of review and reform but they do not actually help pensioners and provide security with an increase in the pension base rate. The government simply say, ‘We have no compassion for pensioners.’ They say, ‘This pension support responds to the needs of the global financial crisis.’ There is no understanding of the need to support pensioners.

The opposition has indicated it supports this, but pensioners of Australia will not forget that this government does not understand them and that today it has said, ‘We are introducing this because of the financial crisis, not because we have listened to the people of Australia, pensioners across Australia, the opposition and the many other groups that have called for this $30 increase.’ It amazes me that the cries of pensioners across Australia have inspired this government to do nothing other than to say, ‘We are responding to a global financial crisis.’ It needs an excuse, and you should not need an excuse to do this.

The minister also outlined the economic position the government finds itself in. The truth is that the Australian people and experts in this field all know that it is a lot easier to have a $10.4 billion stimulus package when you inherit a $20 billion surplus, when you do not inherit a $10 billion budget black hole and $96 billion of debt. This package, which as I have said the opposition supports, is the direct result and dividend of over a decade of strong coalition economic stewardship and the surpluses and elimination of debt that I mentioned.

The fact that the minister referred to the bills pending before the Senate strikes me as typically hypocritical. Six or seven months ago these bills were being promoted as the way to restrain an overheating economy. They have been misleadingly labelled as bills to help tackle inflation, when they force up the price of private health insurance and the price of certain alcoholic drinks. They were outlined as meeting the need to slow the economy, yet the government is now saying we need to pass these bills to slow the economy at the same time as we are stimulating it. It shows a very basic failure of economics 101: that you should not be trying to do both at the same time. That the government is still proposing to increase the private health insurance rates for 200,000 people over the age of 65 who live on less than $20,000 per year shows it has absolutely no concern for the true needs of pensioners. Many of those people are on the pension, and some of the grant announced today will be eaten away by the increase in private health insurance. Let us just hope they do not like a Bundy and Coke, because that is going up as well.

The opposition has picked this crisis from day one. The Leader of the Opposition outlined that the credit crisis was going to have an impact on the economy back when this government was still talking about the economy overheating. The government has been beaten to the punch by the opposition three times now: on the purchase of mortgage securities for liquidity in the mortgage market, on guaranteeing Australians’ bank deposits and on pensions. I am sure the Australian people look forward to more backflips from the government on the proposed tax increases and on cutting the price of fuel.

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those opposite are in an embarrassing position, and for them to stand up today and say the things they have said in this chamber is, to say the least, embarrassing. Those opposite had nearly 12 years in which to fix the pension system—to address its shortcomings and to assist those most in need—but they failed to do so. Last year, the Howard cabinet actually voted against raising the base rate of the pension, and today, when a positive move has been made, we have those opposite, instead of standing up in support, standing up and having just another political go.

The global financial crisis is affecting financial markets right around the world, including in Australia, and those opposite know it. In the past two weeks it has entered a new and even more serious phase. The Rudd Labor government is a forward-looking government, which is anticipating events and putting in place measures to deal with them. We know that working families, pensioners, carers and small-business operators right around Australia—people who have small deposits in banks or other financial institutions, including building societies and credit unions—were becoming increasingly anxious because of what they were seeing on television in their lounge rooms each evening and what they were being confronted with in the newspapers on a daily basis.

We know that the stability of the banks is of fundamental importance to all Australian households, to small businesses and to pensioners. We understand that Australia and the Australian banking system is affected by global events. And, in recent days, global financial conditions have deteriorated markedly. As a result, governments around the world are providing unprecedented support to their financial institutions to enable them to recapitalise and gain access to wholesale borrowing. So what did our government do? The government took advice from the regulators. Why? Because they are in the best position to tell the government the true state of the wellbeing of our banks. What did the opposition do when they were in government—despite HIH, and following the recommendations of the Australian financial regulator? They did nothing. They took no action. They sat back on their hands. It was left to the incoming government to act. So, acting on the advice of the regulators, the government made the decision to act to provide the same guarantees for our banks and other financial institutions.

Today, the government announced further measures to assist in dealing with the global financial crisis’s impact on Australia, with the announcement of its $10.4 billion Economic Security Strategy. The government is delivering a down payment to pensioners, carers and people with a disability, to provide them with immediate financial help in the nine-month lead-up to the comprehensive reform of the pension system. Yes—that is still going ahead. This will be available through a lump sum payment of $1,400 to singles, $2,100 to couples and $1,000 to recipients of the carers allowance for each eligible person being cared for, to be paid from 8 December.

Let me just refresh your memory. The opposition leader did not believe that carers or people on a disability pension or pensioner couples were in need of assistance. He, along with his Liberal and National Party colleagues, did not consider these pensioners worthy of additional financial help. But I will return to the Economic Security Strategy announced today.

In recognition of the difficult economic circumstances that many Commonwealth seniors card holders face, we are also providing them with a lump sum payment of $1,400 to singles and $2,100 to couples. We are providing security for working families into the future and we are providing relief right now, when families need it. This relief will be delivered to families who receive family tax benefit A, through a one-off payment of $1,000 for each eligible child in their care, which is also to be paid from 8 December.

We are also responding to the challenge of housing affordability, and stimulating residential construction activity, through the first home owners grant boost, which will increase grants up to $14,000 for first home buyers purchasing an established home, and, for those purchasing a newly constructed home, up to $21,000. (Time expired)

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to make some comments on the handout to the carers and pensioners announced by the government today. I welcome it very much. It was on 4 September that I issued a media release calling on the government to give a one-off catch-up payment, as I called it, to all pensioners and carers. I knew, from the pensioners and many other carers phoning and coming into my office, how tough they were doing it and how they were battling with the cost of living. I think it is a good thing to see today these people being treated with some sort of respect. As I said just a few weeks ago in my maiden speech, that is especially so for our elderly pensioners. They have earned a rise in the pension and they deserve it. We owe a lot to them for what they have done for us and for the magnificent country we have inherited today.

A lot of people from the government side say, ‘What did the coalition ever do about pensioners when they were in government for 11½ years?’ I should remind them that the coalition were the government that tied the single pension to 25 per cent of average male earnings. And, over the 11½ years when the coalition were in government, male wages increased by 20 per cent in real terms—probably 20 times higher than under the previous government, prior to 1996. The coalition did an extremely good job of increasing pensions during their period, as well as introducing one-off payment systems.

The payments we see today will be very welcome for those battlers out there. Mr Rudd promised before the election that he would put downward pressure on grocery prices. Well, we know that that is a farce and that millions of dollars have been wasted on what you might call a stupid website—GROCERYchoice. He also said that he would put downward pressure on fuel prices. Of course we have seen little of that, despite the price of oil going from US$147 a barrel at its peak to just $79 or $80 in today’s prices. I am pleased with what the coalition did for our pensioners and, as I said, I welcome what the government has done today.

This has all come about because of one thing. It is easy for the government to stand up and say, ‘We’re going to spend $10.4 billion,’ et cetera, but they should just think about where they got it from. They were left a massive surplus by the previous government, which paid off $96 billion in debt. I have a little chuckle each time members of the government talk about the surplus that they have ‘built’. It is a surplus they inherited, not one that they have built. The word ‘surplus’, I am sure, cannot be defined or explained by anyone in the Labor Party—look back at their record of managing money, whether in New South Wales, Victoria or South Australia, in the late eighties or the nineties and at that disastrous 1983 to 1996 period of the Hawke-Keating era. The surplus that they have ‘built’, as they say, was simply inherited from the previous good fiscal management policy of the previous government.

It is because of that surplus that we are now able to care for those battling the most in our community. That is the result of the government’s decision today. Hence, I congratulate them on that decision. It has been a long time coming. Even in my short time in this chamber, it has been obvious that arrogance does flourish. There are good ideas from all sides of the House. I suppose that is nothing new—it has probably been going on in this place for decades. But I wish politics were such that when good ideas do come forward both sides would listen to them, because I am sure that both sides have a contribution to make, and surely there can be good ideas from both sides of the chamber.

I congratulate the government. This will stimulate the economy. There will be money out there to spend. Those most in need will be able to pay some bills. There will be jubilation amongst hundreds of thousands of Australians today at this announcement. I look forward to seeing some boost in the economy, especially for our small businesses, who are in desperate need, especially in country areas where we have suffered drought since early 2002. I can see that there will be a lot of good to come out of this and a lot of relief for those strugglers and I look forward to seeing some brighter spots, especially around the rural areas, in the near future.

Question agreed to.