House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Motions Pensioner Concessions PENSIONER CONCESSIONS Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Bragg Deputy Leader of the Opposition Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:12): I move: That this house condemns the government for failing to increase concessions for aged pensioners and urges the government to immediately provide for interim additional concessions for utilities, council rates and public transport. In moving this motion I remind the house that the Premier of this state is the National President of the Australian Labor Party and is well positioned in terms of having the opportunity to make a difference for aged people in our community, in particular those on an aged pension. However, he has, in this great new spirit of cooperative federalism, remained silent when the Australian government under Mr Rudd has failed in every way to make any provision for aged pensioners in this year's federal budget. That is the first matter on which I condemn the state government for its failure to consider aged pensioners. The federal government had a $22 billion surplus in this year's budget and would not even give one penny extra for the provision of aged pensioners. I note that the federal opposition this week moved successfully in the Senate, with the support of minority parties and Independents, to pass legislation requiring that an extra $30 be paid to pensioners, which we welcomed. This was proposed on the basis that, while the Henry review was under way federally, which is apparently to report to the federal government in early 2009, at least this would make some extra provision for our pensioners. It also comes at a time when in 2008 we celebrate 100 years of aged pensions being provided in this country, pensions having been introduced in 1908, at a time when retirement at 60 and 65 years respectively was perilously close to the time of departure from this earth. Indeed, people were lucky to get in a year after retirement before their life was extinguished. Things have changed—there is no question about that—and the resultant burden on the community, including the provision of financial support, has significantly increased for all governments. It is even more important, when you have massive surpluses in budgets, to ensure that there is adequate provision. I notice that Ian Yates, Chief Executive of the Council on the Ageing, has called for this in a background where malnutrition is a reality for aged pensioners and they need some support. Apart from the fact that the leader of this government is also national President of the Australian Labor Party and has done nothing at the federal level to seek support for this measure from the new Australian government and left them scandalously isolated, what else could he do? In his own state budget—which followed the federal budget—he could have made provision for the support of aged pensioners in the community by concessions. Already this jurisdiction is undertaken. Aged pensioners as a result of means testing can be eligible for public transport concessions, energy concessions and supplements, and also for council rebates. But, at present, even they are significantly confined to certain people. For example, in order to take advantage of a public transport concession a public transport system must be available to use. Of course, for nearly one-third of the state's population that live in rural South Australia this is almost inalienable for many. Even if they are eligible under a means test it is often remote. Recently, on a country visit to Mannum (in the member for Schubert's electorate) it was brought to my attention that, while one be can be eligible for a rebate in relation to gas in metropolitan Adelaide where the gas is connected, if you have to rely on gas bottles you get nothing. You get nothing on the rental of the gas bottle or the amount that is consumed. The important thing is that aged communities— The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting: Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Ms CHAPMAN: The government may attempt to interject on this, but they should go to Mannum and listen to these people because they are very concerned about it. The Hon. P.F. Conlon House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Do they have electricity? Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Ms CHAPMAN: They have gas bottles and they are using them for their services. The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting: Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Ms CHAPMAN: Noting the mindless interjection of the government, these people are expected to convert gas services—which might be their hot water or stove—to electricity in order to access that service. The Hon. P.F. Conlon House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Do they have electricity? If so, they get concessions. Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Ms CHAPMAN: How cruel and inhumane! The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Ms CHAPMAN: They have not got enough money to pay for the utility, let alone the capital cost to replace those services—a new stove— The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will have an opportunity to respond. Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Ms CHAPMAN: —and a new hot water service—whatever infrastructure is needed in their home. Of course, how typically mindless of the government's interjection to suggest that these people should use another type of facility in order to do that. They have not got enough money to pay the bill, let alone buy a new stove or hot water service—so members opposite should think about that and understand what a stupid comment and interjection it is; and how horridly insulting it is to the people in country areas of South Australia. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Ms CHAPMAN: Of course, aged pensioners can apply for a rebate of council rates. Again, as a result of means testing aged pensioners can be eligible for a rebate under certain circumstances. We are seeking that the government at least review access to this in order to understand that the poorest of aged pensioners often do not even have a home to start with. Of course, they will not get the direct benefit in any way. I have raised this issue before in the area of land tax. I have suggested to the government that this has a direct effect on tenants. If there is no access to a land tax concession by the landlord—whether or not they are a pensioner—on a rental property, then that cost will transfer on to the tenant. In relation to land tax, the government's typical mindless response is to say that they do not pay land tax. Any donkey could understand that when you have a cost imposed on a property, which is subsequently tenanted, one way or another the rental payment is reflective of the costs to the landowner. He or she will therefore add in the cost of rates and taxes in relation to water installation, services to the property, applicable council rates, land tax, etc. What is important for this government to understand is that, whilst there is some concessional access when the aged pensioner is a landowner, there is no direct benefit to them, no concession available, of course, if they are a tenant. As a tenant, they will have to pay a rental payment that is commensurate with the add-on costs of that property. If it has one bone in its corporate body, I ask the government to appreciate the level of despair that many aged pensioners are currently facing. We have had numerous articles about this. They cannot even afford to eat dog food, states one article I read about this situation. The situation is that they are having to sacrifice basic services, very often we hear during the winter season. People turn off heating services because they cannot afford electricity, and they eat inferior food. The government needs to appreciate that, if there is no clear attention to this to ensure that there is sufficient funding, this problem will only balloon out to become an extra weight on our health services. One other matter which was recently brought to my attention—again in country South Australia—was the cost now of medication. Whilst the PBS makes provision for supplement via federal government support into the drugs administered under a prescription, there is often a very significant extra cost. In one household, I was told, this is now up to over $100 a month in extra payment for necessary medications. The truth is that people who are in households, particularly on a single aged pension, are not able to meet fundamental, basic accommodation (shelter, protection) and in particular food (sustenance) not only to ensure that they stay healthy and alive but also to maintain a reasonable lifestyle. It is an environment where clearly the Australian government has now demonstrated its colours—its true spots have been disclosed. It does not give a fig about the aged-care pensioners. It is even more important that this government—the Premier having failed to do anything nationally as the Australian Labor Party president—appreciate its responsibility and ensure that it gives some consideration to this motion and act on it. The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly Fisher The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:22): I want to make a brief contribution. This issue has been around for a long time. I do have a lot of empathy for pensioners. The fundamental problem with our system relating to pensioners and other retirees is that we do not have and never have had a proper, comprehensive retirement policy and practice for them. I have raised this before, but from the day you start work in many countries in Europe you start paying towards your retirement so that, when you retire, you live at a standard which is commensurate with and relates to the standard of living you had when you were in full-time employment. Obviously, the pay is at a slightly lower rate, but there is a relationship. You do not have people becoming pensioners and retirees who must try to live off the smell of an oily rag. It is a federal government issue, ultimately, but the fundamental problem is that no federal government has ever had the ticker—the spine—to implement a genuine and comprehensive retirement policy to cover the situation people face when they leave the workforce and retire; so, any system of concessions will be a bandaid job. What we have across Australia (and the minister would be able to correct me if I am wrong) is that the ministerial councils are trying to address the issue and have consistency and equity across Australia in regard to people getting concessions. The other day on the train I counted the number of concession cards that people in the relevant categories may be required to produce. I think it is something like 23. The same person would not have 23 cards, but the point is that what we have got is a dog's breakfast of concession cards covering not only aged pensioners but other categories as well. This is an area that needs to be refined, reformed and brought into line with, I guess, modern-day thinking. The fundamental issue is that we have a hotchpotch of retirement arrangements—with some people in private sector schemes; some in government schemes; some in no schemes, or in very minimal schemes—so, when it comes to retirement, you will have the haves and the have nots out there. Unless and until a federal government decides to implement a comprehensive retirement scheme, which goes beyond a minimal contribution—which we currently have through the compulsory superannuation contribution—we will always have problems with people in their retirement years being unable to afford their council rates, public transport or whatever. That is not to say that some of the current concessions do not need to be looked at, but the problem is that even under current arrangements some people who technically qualify as pensioners might have incredibly large assets. It is not just the widow who is asset rich and income poor. The arrangements for pensioners are very generous in some ways. You can have assets, you can own property worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, and still qualify to receive a pension. Some pensioners also have other additional income, and some people receive pensions from more than one country; so what exists is a mishmash of arrangements. My father, who has long since passed on, was better off as a pensioner than he ever was when he was trying to provide for six children because, as a pensioner, he owned his own house (because he had been fairly diligent). If you do not pay rent as a pensioner then the burden is not as high as it otherwise would be. If you have to pay rent, then you are in a difficult situation, which is compounded by the fact that the pension is very low anyway. This is a complex area and it needs someone to get hold of it at the federal government level, working with the states, to sort out the whole mishmash of arrangements and to try fundamentally to address the basic issue, namely, that we do not have enough allocation for pensioners and other retirees because we do not have a proper, comprehensive national retirement policy or practice which involves everyone, from the day they enter the workforce, contributing to their ultimate retirement. The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly Elder Minister for Transport Minister for Infrastructure Minister for Energy The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Energy) (11:27): I feel obliged to respond to the contribution of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It is difficult to know whether her contribution was driven by breathtaking ignorance or breathtaking dishonesty, but I can assure you of one thing: it was full of breathtaking hypocrisy—absolute breathtaking hypocrisy. Right at the centre of the motion of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was the condemnation of this government for not increasing concessions on utilities to pensioners. But, of course, the truth is that this government increased the concession from $70 to $120—the single biggest increase the concession has ever seen. Why did we need to make such a big increase? Ms Chapman interjecting: The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Because—wait for it, Deputy Leader of the Opposition—in the nine years, when your disgraceful government was in charge, the concession did not increase once. You did not increase it in nine years. Nine years! We put it up by something like 40 per cent because you did not increase it in nine years. You are also running around telling people that if they are using bottled gas that they do not receive concessions. What breathtaking dishonesty; if they are on electricity, they receive the same concession as everyone else. No wonder they said about you on that program, 'How does that member get it so wrong?' Either you do not care, or you are quite happy to present to this chamber things that are not the facts. Let me tell you about this breathtaking hypocrisy. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is in here today pretending that she cares for the hard-up but, of course, she was in here with her team just a couple of days ago doing dog whistle politics because we lend money to poor people to get into home ownership. We were attacked because we lend money to the poor and indigenous people, but now they are in here full of care for the pensioners. What breathtaking hypocrisy! Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Ms CHAPMAN: On a point of order: the member is accusing a member of the opposition— The Hon. P.F. Conlon House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. Conlon: You. Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Ms CHAPMAN: —not even me—who asked questions, and he is reflecting on the motive of the questioner in question time: (a) it was not I (yet I was being accused); and (b) it is a reflection on the motive of the member— The Deputy Speaker House of Assembly The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Debate is not in order. There is no point of order. Member for Bragg, if you wish to claim you have been misrepresented, you make a personal explanation. The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I do not care what you want to call it. I will call it dog whistle politics and people can work out what that means. I can tell you that the Leader of the Opposition came in here and attacked HomeStart in a series of questions— Ms Chapman House of Assembly Ms Chapman: Asked questions. The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Asked questions—of course, we just asked questions! He raised questions about HomeStart being a serious risk to the taxpayer because we had the temerity to lend money to people who otherwise would not get into home ownership—that is, the people who are not well off, the most disadvantaged in our community. Of course, one of the questions was about Nunga loans. You call it what you want; I do not care what you call it. It was a campaign for you. I do not blame him; it was all of you. It was your tactics, your strategy; it was dog whistle politics. We do care. That is why we are the only people who have increased the concession when you did not increase that concession for nine years, yet you come in here and criticise us. What a disgrace! Let me make one closing remark about what you did for pensioners who are paying for utilities: you privatised ETSA and put the price up 25 per cent. That was your contribution, so take your rank hypocrisy, your dog whistle politics, and get out of this place. Roll on 2010 when we can put you to proper scrutiny in an election campaign and show your barking Leader of the Opposition what happens. He barks and he has a dog whistle. We will show your barking Leader of the Opposition all the things— An honourable member interjecting: The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Look at them. They are the Scarlet Pimpernel of policy, 'They seek them here, they seek them there, they seek them everywhere,' because their policy changes from week to week. The one place not to look for them is wherever they were last week because they will not be there, and what they are doing today is just a further extension of the rank hypocrisy of their federal party, which has a private member's bill to give pensioners another $30 a week. What was it? It was 12 years of government—12 years of starving them and punishing them. But suddenly they get into opposition and they discover they have a heart. Rank hypocrisy, like the rank hypocrisy here, should be dismissed by this chamber. Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.