EXTRACTS FROM SPEECH. BY PRIME MINISTER TO CHELSEA
PENSIONERS' CLUB 15 JUNE 1984
Thank you very very much for having arranged this
meeting, but even more-than that thank you very much indeed
for the warmth. of your welcome. I do appreciate it very much
because as-you know we have been very-much in the news, that
is my Government and pensioners-. And* I do appreciate very
much to have this opportunity so soon after the Parliament
has risen to come and meet such a large-gathering of
pensioners and talking with-you about some of the issues
which I know are of great interest to you. I want to take
you fully into my-confidence and tell you-just what our
thinking has been,' what concerns we've had-in our minds as
to what are the thi-ngs that we can do iand~ what are. the best
ways of doing those things-to look after the interests of
that very important sector of the Australian community, that
is the elderly who are now out of the workforce, who have
made through their lives an enormous contribution through
their working lives to create the sort of Australia that
we've got now to create for us a great country and one in
which the younger people are-now having the opportunity to
build further upon what you've handed on to them. And
there's no sector of the Australian community in regard to
whom I have a greater sense of commitment than yours.
And we've been very-much in the news the Government and
the elderly because we've had to be directing our attention
to the best way of meeting our commitment to you.
Now I want to say directly to you that what we're about, what
we've been about, is this question of how we can best lift
the levels of pensions for those who need it most. What we've
been about is to try and see how we can combine the considerations
of equity-and fairness with the facts of the constraints which
exist upon our Government in terms of the amount of money that's
available to do the things which you want us to do. In other
words no'Government, mine or any that's been before or any
that'vill be coming after, has got unlimited revenue. Because
the only revenue that we've got available to us as a Government
is what we collect by way of tax. And so we've got to try
and make sure that in looking after your interests that we
make the decisions which are going to mean that we can provide
the help to those who need it.
So we addressed ourselves last year and into this year to
this question of whether there was some relatively small
section of the elderly who were perhaps getting assistance ./ 2
P. M. cont.: where they really didn't need it so that we
would be able to have more available for those who did need
it. In other words, given the fact that the elderly section
of our population is growing as a larger proportion of the
Australian population, it simply isn't possible to have a
situation where there'is a pension for everybody. irrespective
of how very wealthy they may be. Some people may think that
you should just give a pension to everyone, whether they
are millionaires and whether they've got millions of dollars
worth of property. Well I just say frankly that we can't
do that, we're not going to do that. What we're going to
do is try and organise our resources in a way which means
we can do as much as we can for the great majority of
the pensioner aged community who need help.
So what we want to do, and I'm coming to a little bit more
detail, to just what it means to you, what we want to do is
to raise the value of the pension in real terms for the
majority of : those who need it. And that is what the concept
of the assets test has been about.
Now what I want to say to you quite straightforwardly when
I said from the very first day I became Prime Minister and
head of this Government, I said to the people of Australia
we won't go through office without making some mistakes.
I want to say quite frankly, I've said it in the Parliament
and I say it here, that when we first approached this question
of the assets test we didn.' t make a first class job of it.
We tried our intentions were totally correct to work
out a way of seeing how we could in the fairest way not
pay the full pension to those who didn't really needlit.
And the first form of assets test was not the best way
of doing it because there were too many uncertainties in it
and people really weren't too sure whether they were going
to be affected.
So in February of this year when I got the feeling that there
was this uncertainty in the community, I straightforwardly
faced up to that, that we hadn't got it right the first time
I said well we're not going ahead with something that we
think isn't right. So I referred the question with the
agreement of Cabinet, I referred the question to a representative
committee headed by Professor Gruen. There were representatives
of pensioner groups on it, of welfare organisations, Sir William
Keys, the President of the RSL, agreed to serve on it we
got a representative committee and it was very helpful to us.
They pointed out the weaknesses and the uncertainties in the
first way we'd gone about it or were proposing to go about it.
They suggested another scheme which agAin in the end we didn't
think we could accept entirely because it included in the
concept of an assets test as to whether to get the full pension
or not, it included the pensioner's home. Now we did have
the view not only in respect of Sydney, where house values / 3
arejhigher, we had the feeling that pensioners
had a psychological attachment to the home. They didn't
like the idea of counting their home among their assets.
So we dedided that we would leave the home out. The home
is not going to be counted in the assets test and I'm sure
that you'd agree that that's the right thing to do.
So what we've done is to come up now with a test which
is going to affect very few people. There are approximately
just over 2 million pensioners in Australia. Now the best
calculations that our departments-directly involved, that's
the Department of Social Security and the Department of
Veterans' Affairs, the best calculation that they can give
us is that the number of people that will be be affected
out of over 2 million pensioners will be about 40,000.
That's about 40,000 people with. very very large accumulations
of assets. And we think that that's fair because by not
paying the full pension to those people it means that we're
going to be in a position to do more for you, the great bulk
of pensioners who need help.
Now I'm prepared to face up to any audience in Australia
anywhere and argue the correctness-and the justice of that
case. I'doi't think there's going to be very many Australians
who are going to say that it's not a fair thing for the very
very wealthy, well-placedgroup we're not attacking them, we
haven't got anything against them in any sense but I don't
think anyon&'. s going to say that it's not fair thatto make
more available to help those who need it, that perhaps 40,000
or 2% of the very wealthy are not going to get the part-pension
or full pension. That's what it's about.
The details of it I'll give you a broad outline
of what's involved and how really there will be very
little burden or intrusion on your life. First let me
say this that in calculation of the asset your home, you
don't have to worry yourself about the house at all. And
then for those of you who are married couples with a house
you are entitled to $ 100,000 worth of assets before you would
be touched by the assets test at all.
And for a single pensioner you'could have-your . house
plus 70,000 of other assets.
I would just like to add to that that we recognise that to
some of those pensioners who doi'. t own their own home then
they need to be taken a little bit more account of because
there are some who haven't got their own homes, they rent
a place, or they are living with their relatives: or they
are in a nursing home they can have another $ 50,000 of
assets, In other words a married couple who don't own
their own home can have $ 150,000 assets or if they are
affected a single pensioner $ 120,000 of assets. So you
can see, and don't you agree, it's very very fair.
P. M. cont: The other thing is that-we don't want to
be intrusive, we don't want to create a situation where you
feel that you're going to have someone from the Department
coming and prying into your affairs, We want to make it
as least intrusive as we can so what we'gre done to help that
is to say, well look in regard to the things in your house
which represent your personal effects, your linen and all
your furniture and so on, without having to go through and
try and work it out, we've said letLs say~ that there's
$ 10,000. You don't have to count those things. It: s only
if you happen to think that you are ina situation as a married
couple that you've got assets beyond your house of $ 100,000,
if you think you're there then there's a way in which with
a minimum of intrusion you will be able. to declare. and the'
people in the Department will obviously in the great majority
of. cases will say, well that's the end of it, there's no
intrusion.
And very early in the piece the great majority of pensioners,
I think, will know without filling in any forms, that they
are not going to be affected..
Having said that about the test let me go on and say this
to you that in the Budget which we'll be bringing down in
August we'll be moving then to do more for you in the pensions
area. We will do as you know there's the adjustments coming
up for the change in the CPI, that adjustment will be made
but I can say to you now-, I can't give you the details because
we can't say before the Budget, I can assure you that we'll be
moving in the Budget to do more than just giving you the
adjustment for the CPI, there'll be more in the Budget than
just that. And for those who may not own their own homes or who
are renters there will be some additional and supplementary
assistance for them.
So my friends I think you will see that what my Government's
been aboutis abbut oquity and fairness for the great majority,
the overwhelming majority of pensioners. We want to do what
we can to give you a better deal, You deserve it because
of the contribution you have made to this country and I
admit that we didn't get it quite right in the first place.
I think you'll respect us more for acknowledging that and
making sure we got it right in the end. I'm sure you'll agree
that we have...
And may I say Particularly how pleased I am to be here in your
presence with David Charles, the Member for. Isaacs. I want
to say to you that he's been a great Member for you. ini:
representing not merely your interests but the interests of
the electorate and this area generally.