Bills Digest no. 129 2014–15
PDF version [673KB]
WARNING: This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the Bill.
Michael Klapdor
Social Policy Section
22 June 2015
This Digest addresses the Bill as amended by Government
amendments moved in the House of Representatives on 18 June 2015. The amendments
remove all of the Bill’s Schedules except for Schedule 3—Assets test and
concession cards.
Contents
List of abbreviations
Purpose
of the Bill
2014–15
budget measures and stalled legislation
Agreement
with the Australian Greens to secure passage of the Bill
Committee
consideration
Statement
of Compatibility with Human Rights
Schedule
3—Assets test and concession cards
Date introduced: 4
June 2015
House: House of
Representatives
Portfolio: Social
Services
Commencement: Schedule
3 on 1 January 2017 and all remaining sections on Royal Assent.
Links: The links to the Bill,
its Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech can
be found on the Bill’s home page, or through the Australian
Parliament website.
When Bills have been passed and have received Royal Assent, they
become Acts, which can be found at the ComLaw
website.
Abbreviation
|
Definition
|
CPI
|
Consumer Price Index
|
CSHC
|
Commonwealth Seniors Health Card
|
DSS
|
Department of Social Services
|
GDP
|
Gross Domestic Product
|
HCC
|
Health Care Card
|
No. 1 Bill
|
Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014
Budget Measures No. 1) Bill 2014
|
No. 2 Bill
|
Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014
Budget Measures No. 2) Bill 2014
|
No.4 Bill
|
Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014
Budget Measures No. 4) Bill 2014
|
No. 5 Bill
|
Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014
Budget Measures No. 5) Bill 2014
|
No. 6 Bill
|
Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014
Budget Measures No. 6) Bill 2014
|
PCC
|
Pensioner Concession Card
|
Seniors Supplement Bill
|
Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Seniors Supplement
Cessation) Bill 2014
|
SS Act
|
Social Security Act 1991
|
SS Admin Act
|
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999
|
VE Act
|
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986
|
The purpose of the Social Services Legislation Amendment
(Fair and Sustainable Pensions) Bill 2015 (the Bill) as introduced was to
implement three 2015–16 budget measures and reintroduce three 2014–15 budget
measures.
The 2015–16 Budget measures included in the Bill as
introduced were:
- placing
a cap on the amount of income from certain defined benefit superannuation
schemes that can be excluded from the social security income test (excluding
income from military superannuation schemes) from 1 January 2016
- reducing
the period an eligible pensioner can spend overseas before their pension rate
is proportionalised to a rate based on their Australian Working Life Residency
Period from 26 weeks to six weeks from 1 January 2017 and
- raising
the assets test free areas for all pension and benefits, increasing the rate at
which pension payments are reduced for asset levels over the free areas (the
taper rate), and ensuring that any pensioners who lose eligibility as a result
of the measure are automatically entitled to a Commonwealth Seniors Health Card,
a Health Care Card or a veterans’ Gold Card (Repatriation Health Card – For All
Conditions) from 1 January 2017.
The three
2014–15 budget measures included in the Bill as introduced, with new
commencement dates, were:
- abolishing
the Seniors Supplement paid to Commonwealth Seniors Health Card and some
veteran’s Gold Card holders but continuing to pay the Energy Supplement
attached to the Seniors Supplement from 20 June 2015
- abolishing
the Pensioner Education Supplement from 1 January 2016 and
- abolishing
the Education Entry Payment from 1 January 2016.
Government
amendments moved in the House of Representatives on 18 June 2015 removed all
but Schedule 3—relating to the assets test and concession cards—from the Bill.[1]
The Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum issued by the Government states that
Schedules 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the Bill as introduced ‘are
being removed for the purpose of this Bill and the 2015 Budget measures will be
reintroduced in [a] separate Bill in due course’.[2]
The Bill as
amended will amend the Social Security Act 1991 (the SS Act), the
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (the SS Admin Act), the
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the VE Act), and the Social
Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures No. 6) Act 2014,
to implement the changes to assets test free areas, taper rate and concession
card arrangements described above.
Following the 2014–15 Budget, the Government introduced to
the Parliament two omnibus Bills that contained all the legislative amendments
required to implement the Budget measures that fell within the Social Services
portfolio. The first of these Bills was the Social Services and Other
Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures No. 1) Bill 2014 (the No. 1 Bill)
and, the second, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014
Budget Measures No. 2) Bill 2014 (the No. 2 Bill).[3]
The Government was unable to secure passage of either of
these Bills through the Senate and both were discharged from the Notice Paper
in the Senate on 28 October 2014. Subsequently, the Government reintroduced
measures from the No. 1 Bill and the No. 2 Bill in four new Bills:
Only the No. 6 Bill has been passed by the Parliament.[8]
Controversial changes to pension payments were contained
in the No. 2 Bill and, subsequently, in the No. 5 Bill.[9]
In particular, the Government had sought to change the way pension rates were
adjusted (known as indexation) and to raise the Age Pension eligibility age to
70 from 2035.[10]
In the 2015–16 Budget, the Government announced that it
would not proceed with the proposed indexation change and would introduce a new
savings measure as a replacement: the assets test changes contained in the
Bill.[11]
The Government will still proceed with the proposed change to the Age Pension
eligibility age.
As noted above, the Bill as introduced included a range of
2014–15 and 2015–16 budget measures. On 16 June 2015, the Labor Opposition announced
that it would not support the asset test changes proposed in the Bill.[12]
The Opposition stated that it would support two of the Schedules in the Bill as
introduced: the abolition of the Seniors Supplement and the changes to the
income test treatment of certain defined benefit income streams.[13]
Also on 16 June 2015, the Australian Greens confirmed that
they had reached an agreement with the Government to pass the asset test
changes (support from the Greens allows the Government to pass the Bill through
the Senate).[14]
Senator Rachel Siewert stated that passage of the assets test changes were not
linked to other measures in the Bill and that these measures were still under
consideration.[15]
Australian Greens Leader, Richard Di Natale, stated that the Government had ‘agreed
to give special consideration to retirement incomes in its Tax White Paper’.[16]
On 18 June 2015, the Government announced that it would
remove all but the asset test measures from the Bill.[17]
The Leader of the House and Minister for Education and Training explained the
move:
The actual amendments being moved by the
Minister for Social Services today would split the bill in order to take the
assets test into a separate bill from the other reforms that have been proposed
in the budget. This will allow the Senate to deal with that change cleanly next
week, when the government and the Greens together ensure that this reform
passes both houses of parliament.[18]
Senate Community Affairs Committee
The Bill has been referred to the Senate Community Affairs
Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 15 June 2015. On 15 June,
the Senate granted an extension of time for reporting until 22 June 2015. And,
on 16 June, the Senate granted an extension of time for reporting until 10
August 2015. Details of the inquiry are available here.[19]
Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny
of Bills
The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills had
no comment on the Bill.[20]
As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights
(Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed the
Bill’s compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared
in the international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The
Government considers that the Bill is compatible.[21]
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights had no
comment on the Bill.[22]
Schedule 3 makes a number of changes to the social security
assets test which will affect all means tested income support payments
(including allowances and pensions):
- raise
the asset test free areas—allowance recipients with assets valued over the free
area are no longer eligible for payment while pensioners with assets over the
free area have their payment rate reduced
- increase
the taper rate—the rate at which pension rates are reduced for assets over the
free areas and
- ensure
those who are ineligible for a payment as a result of the changes are eligible
for a concession card (either a Health Care Card or a Commonwealth Seniors
Health Card).
The proposed measures will commence on 1 January 2017.
Financial implications
The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill states that the
expected budget savings for Schedule 3 over the forward estimates period would
be $2,434.0 million.[23]
The expected savings from the assets test changes are net
savings which include the expense of not proceeding with the 2014–15 Budget’s
changes to the way pension rates are indexed.[24]
Background to asset testing
Brief history of pension means
testing
Asset testing has had a contentious history in Australia’s
social security system. The Age Pension paid from 1909 was asset tested (and
income tested) and originally included the family home in the test (though it
was treated concessionally). Many at the time the Age Pension was introduced
were concerned that means testing would discourage thrift but this was rejected
by the Royal Commission on the Old-Age Pensions held in 1905–06.[25]
As historian T H Kewley described it, the Commission concluded that ‘the
inducement offered by an old-age pensions scheme such as it proposed would
scarcely tempt a provident person into habits of thriftlessness’.[26]
In 1912, the family home was made completely exempt from
consideration under the means test but there were few other changes to means
testing between 1909 and 1946.[27]
After the Second World War, there was pressure to abolish
means testing on the Age Pension altogether due to renewed concern that the
thrifty were being excluded from the pension and that means testing was
discouraging savings.[28]
Both the Liberal-Country Party Coalition and Labor endorsed either the
abolition or liberalisation of means testing well into the 1970s.[29]
The 1940s and 1950s saw substantial increases in the levels of permissible
income and property limits and in 1954 the Menzies Government exempted income
from property from the means test. In 1961, the Menzies Government introduced a
merged means test. The new test had no property limit, but income
was deemed to be derived from property above an exempt amount. One pound
for every ten pounds of property above 200 pounds was added to the annual
income of pensioners to produce an amount of 'means as assessed'.[30]
The Gorton Government introduced a tapered
withdrawal rate in 1969. The annual rate of pension was reduced by only half of
the amount for income above the exempt amount (including income deemed from
property) rather than the full amount as had been the case previously.[31] In 1972, the McMahon
Government introduced a large increase in the level of exempt income and
intended to abolish the means test by 1975 for age pensioners aged 65 years and
older. The Whitlam Government abolished the means test for age pensioners aged
75 years and over in 1973 and for those aged 70 years and over in 1975, having
matched the McMahon Government commitment before the 1972 election.[32] In 1976, the Fraser
Government removed any consideration of assets from the means test making it an
income test only (except for actual income derived from those assets).
The Fraser Government commenced the reversal
of this trend towards a universal Age Pension free of any means testing. This
trend was replaced with a renewed emphasis on targeting assistance to those
most in need. In 1978, the Fraser Government froze the rate of pension paid
free of the income test to those aged 70 years or more.[33] The income test for those
over the age of 70 was reintroduced for any additional pension entitlement. The
Hawke Government completed the process of reinstating a full means test with
strengthened income testing of pensions for those aged 70 years and over in 1983
and the reintroduction of an assets test in 1985.[34] The family home and a
limited range of other assets were exempt from consideration under the assets
test as were the first $120,000.00 of a single pensioner's assets and
the first $150,000.00 of a pensioner couple's assets. For those who owned their
own home only $70,000.00 of assets for single pensioners and $100,000.00 of
assets for a pensioner couple were exempt. These exemption levels were subject
to annual indexation in line with the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Pension was
reduced by $4.00 per fortnight for every $1,000 of assets in excess of the
exemption levels (also known as free areas).[35]
The main changes to means testing under the Keating and
Howard Government years were in regards to how certain types of income and
assets were assessed (particularly in relation to superannuation and other
financial investments). In 1993, the Keating Government reduced the withdrawal
rate (the taper rate) from $4.00 to $3.00 per fortnight for every $1,000.00 in
assets over the applicable free area.[36]
As part of its Simpler Super reforms, the Howard Government halved this
withdrawal rate from 2007 to $1.50 per fortnight for every $1,000.00 over the
applicable free area.[37]
The Simpler Super reforms were aimed at improving retirement incomes and
resulted in most superannuation benefits for those aged 60 or over becoming tax
free and allowed many with significant assets to access the Age Pension (as a
result of the taper rate changes).[38]
The current assets test
All income support payments are means tested under both
income and assets tests. Both tests are used in calculating the rate of
payment, with the one that results in the lower rate being the one that is
applied. The assets test thresholds (also known as free areas) apply
differently for allowances (such as Newstart Allowance) than they do for
pensions (such as the Age Pension). For allowances, assets over these
thresholds will mean a person is not eligible for the payment. For pensions,
assets over the thresholds affect an individual’s rate of payment. Currently,
every $1,000.00 of assets over the relevant threshold reduces an individual’s
fortnightly pension payment by $1.50, so those with significant assets may only
receive a part pension rate. The level of assets which would reduce a person’s
fortnightly payment to zero is known as the asset test limit.
Schedule 3 proposes to raise the assets test thresholds
and increase the taper rate from $1.50 to $3.00 for every $1,000 in assets over
the relevant threshold. This arrangement would be the same as that which
applied prior to 2007.
The following tables set out the current assets test
thresholds and limits applicable in different circumstances and the thresholds
and limits that would apply from 1 January 2017 under the Bill’s provisions:
Table 2: Asset test limits for allowances and thresholds
for full pensions
|
Current
|
From January
2017
|
Family circumstances
|
Homeowners
|
Non-homeowners
|
Homeowners
|
Non-homeowners
|
Single
|
$202,000
|
$348,500
|
$250,000
|
$450,000
|
Couple (Combined)
|
$286,500
|
$433,000
|
$375,000
|
$575,000
|
Table 3: Asset test limits for part pensions
|
Current
|
From January
2017
|
Family circumstances
|
Homeowners
|
Non-homeowners
|
Homeowners
|
Non-homeowners
|
Single
|
$775,500
|
$922,000
|
$547,000
|
$747,000
|
Couple (Combined)
|
$1,151,500
|
$1,298,000
|
$823,000
|
$1,023,000
|
Note: The asset test limits for part pensions are based on DSS
estimates of pension rates for January 2017. Limits will be higher for those in
receipt of some supplementary payments such as Rent Assistance (for non-homeowners).
Sources: S Morrison (Minister for Social Services), Fairer access to a more sustainable pension, media release, 7 May 2015, accessed 17
June 2015; Department of Human Services (DHS), ‘Assets’,
DHS website, accessed 17 June 2015.
Rationale
Minister for Social Services Scott Morrison stated in his
second reading speech for the Bill that the Government’s intention is to
‘rebalance the assets test’ to ‘make it fairer and better targeted’ and to
‘help ensure the pension system is sustainable into the future’.[39]
In its submission to the Senate Community Affairs Committee inquiry into the
Bill, the Department of Social Services (DSS) cited the Intergenerational
Report’s estimates that expenditure on the Age Pension will grow from 2.9 per
cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2014–15 to 3.6 per cent of GDP in
2054–55 as evidence of the ‘fiscal strain’ on the current pension system caused
by structural ageing.[40]
The Age Pension is the largest single component of the Australian Government’s
budget expenditure (after payments to the states and territories) at an
estimated cost of $44.2 billion in 2015–16.[41]
The Opposition has explicitly rejected the claim that the
pension system is unsustainable. Shadow Minister for Families and Payments
Jenny Macklin stated in her second reading speech:
This government would have you believe that
the pension is unsustainable. They would have you believe that the government
cannot afford to look after low- and middle-income retirees. But it is simply
not true, and Labor knows that the pension is sustainable. Australia is
considered to have one of the most sustainable pensions in the world. The
Allianz Pension Sustainability Index last year found that Australia's pension
system is the most sustainable in the world. According to the OECD, Australia
spends just 3½ per cent of GDP on the age pension, compared with the OECD
average of 7.8 per cent. Ensuring the continued sustainability of the
retirement income system is important, but it has to be done in a fair and
equitable way.[42]
The Opposition has proposed changes to
superannuation tax concessions arguing that it is this component of the
retirement income system in Australia that is unstainable.[43]
There are two issues at play in this
debate. Firstly, the growing fiscal cost of the Age Pension and what should be
done, if anything, to reduce the pressure this places on the Budget. Secondly, the
‘fairness’ of any particular measure aimed at reforming the retirement income
system in Australia. In regards to the first issue, it is broadly accepted that
the growing cost of government support for retirees should be addressed.
Proposals include restricting eligibility to the pension via changes to means
testing or raising the eligibility age; reducing the rate of growth in payment
rates via changes to indexation; and, changing the tax treatment of retirement
investments (particularly superannuation) to increase government revenue. In
regards to the second issue, fairness is assessed is different ways and with
reference to different principles, meaning that different measures can be
simultaneously described as fair and unfair. Fairness assessments can be based
on the number of people positively or negatively affected, on the particular
groups affected, on principles of horizontal and vertical equity, on claims of
entitlement, in terms of intergenerational responsibilities, and in terms of
emotional/sentimental values (for example, that the family home is different
from other types of assets).
The measures proposed by the Bill are
aimed at addressing the first issue by reducing expenditure on the Age Pension
via tighter restrictions on eligibility. The claim for fairness is based on its
impact: those who will benefit are those who have relatively little wealth (in
terms of assessed assets) and those negatively affected are those who are
relatively wealthy with assets they can draw upon to make up for any negative
impact. Within these terms the Government’s rationale holds but it is important
to note that a range of alternative measures have been put forward to address
issues with the retirement income system (see below) and that different
assessments of fairness can be applied.
Numbers affected
DSS estimates that 88 per cent of the more than four million
social security and veterans’ affairs pensioners will not be affected by the
measure at all—this includes recipients of the Age Pension, Disability Support
Pension, Carer Payment, Widow B Pension, and the veterans’ Service Pension.[44]
Four per cent (171,500) will benefit from the changes as they have moderate
assets close to the free areas.[45]
This includes 166,000 social security pensioners and 5,500 veterans’ affairs
pensioners. DSS estimates that the average benefit for this group of pensioners
will be $30 a fortnight (or $780 per annum).[46]
Around eight per cent of pensioners (327,300) will be
negatively affected by the changes:
- 236,000
will have their payment rates reduced by an average of $130 a fortnight (or
$3,380 per annum) including 225,000 social security pensioners and 10,500
veterans’ pensioners and
- 91,300
pensioners will lose eligibility for income support with an average loss of
around $190 per fortnight ($4,940 per annum) including 88,500 social security
pensioners and 2,800 veterans’ affairs pensioners.[47]
Further, an estimated 6,500 people will qualify for social
security allowance payment as a result of the increase in the free areas.[48]
Financial impact on pensioners
The financial impact on some pensioners has been the most
contentious issue in relation to the proposed changes to the assets test. DSS’s
own modelling suggests that some pensioners will lose up to $14,467 when the
measure commences. This is for couple homeowners with $823,000 worth of assets.
DSS suggests that this couple would need to draw down on 1.76 per cent of their
assets in that year to replace the lost pension payment.[49]
Some have argued that the measure punishes those who have saved for their
retirement, particularly superannuants, who will have to draw down a
significant amount of their assets only to have the same income as those with a
low level of savings or investments.[50]
DSS has rejected that argument stating that retirees with assets at the
affected levels could sustain a much higher standard of living than those on
the maximum rate of the Age Pension through a combination of investment
earnings, capital drawdowns and eventual pension entitlements:
For example, assuming the drawdown of investment returns and
capital over a 35 year period, and long term investment returns averaging five
per cent:
-
a partnered couple who own their home and have $825,000 in assessable
assets (just above the estimated assets test cut off amount of $823,000 that
would apply from 1 January 2017 under the proposed changes) could generate a
total income (including investment returns, capital drawdowns and eventual
pension entitlements) of over $58,000 year in real terms, which is
approximately $25,000 a year higher than the full pension, and
-
a single person who owns their home and has $550,000 in assessable
assets (just above the estimated assets test cut off amount of $547,000 that
would apply from 1 January 2017 under the proposed changes) could generate a
total income (including investment returns, capital drawdowns and eventual
pension entitlements) of over $38,000 year in real terms, which is
approximately $16,000 a year higher than the full pension.[51]
The financial impact on individual households will depend on
a range of factors, particularly the type of assets they hold and the rate of
return. DSS has cited data on the asset holdings of current pensioners to argue
that households with high levels of assets have substantial funds in
superannuation and a diversity of other interests (including real estate and
‘deemed assets’ which can include shares, bonds and bank deposits).[52]
DSS holds that these households tend to have less invested in low-yield assets and
are thus more likely to be able to draw sufficient income from their assets to
cover any loss of pension income.[53]
The Tax and Transfer Institute submitted that, as a result
of the proposed changes ‘many savers with private assets will need to run down
their assets substantially to maintain a comfortable standard of living in
retirement. The Minister’s figures appear to involve optimistic assumptions
about the real returns pensioners can achieve’.[54]
Industry Super, which modelled the impact of the measure on future retirees,
also expressed concern about how the changes would impact on retirees’ standard
of living:
The changes amount to very significant change in the
retirement income settings and represent a ‘shift in the goal posts’ for those
near retirement. Many individuals contemplating retirement have sought
specialist financial advice on the level of private savings needed to have a
reasonable retirement. Such advice would have invariably considered age pension
entitlement under existing rules. Under these proposals many of these
individuals will be unable to achieve their retirement income goals because
they may have insufficient time or discretionary income to accumulate
additional private savings to make up for the shortfall due to the measures in
the Bill.[55]
The Government has rejected the premise of these criticisms
by arguing that the Age Pension is not intended to supplement the income of
retirees with sufficient means to support themselves, it is only for those with
‘genuine need’.[56]
Minister for Social Services, Scott Morrison, wrote: ‘where
people have the means to support themselves in their retirement, there should
not be an entitlement for a taxpayer-funded pension’.[57] Further, Minister
Morrison stated that retirees should be drawing down on their superannuation
assets to support themselves rather than holding on to these assets:
I think this is a fairer system, I think it
represents a very simple proposition and that is tax incentives for
superannuation are provided so people can build up their superannuation and
they can draw down on it in their retirement. It’s not there as
an inheritance programme; it’s not there as a wealth transfer programme; it’s
there so people can save for their retirement and have a great standard of
living, a good standard of living in their retirement, that’s what it’s for.[58]
Industry Super’s modelling suggest that the number of
retirees negatively affected by the proposed changes will grow to 40 per cent
of retirees in 2055, and that pension reductions will particularly affect those
who currently have average or below average incomes and single women.[59]
DSS has countered that this is not surprising and these results are essentially
the intention of the current design of the retirement income system: that the
superannuation system encourages greater self-sufficiency in retirement and
thus less reliance on the Age Pension amongst the broader population: ‘The
finding that the assets test changes will, in the longer term, affect those
earning average incomes is a positive outcome. It shows that the superannuation
system is working and is helping people on average incomes to achieve higher
superannuation balances by retirement’.[60]
Concession cards
Schedule 3 proposes to provide Commonwealth concession cards
to any pensioner who loses eligibility for their payment as a result of the
changes to the assets test. For many part-pensioners access to the Pensioner
Concession Card (PCC) can be as valuable as the actual pension rate they
receive. This is because the PCC provides access to discounted medicines under
the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and a range of other benefits including:
- lower
expenditure thresholds for accessing the Medicare Safety Net
- incentives
for GPs to bulk-bill PCC holders
- free
hearing services through the Office for Hearing Services
- discounted
mail redirection through Australia Post and
- a
range of concessions from state, territory and local governments such as
discounted energy bills, discounted rates, reduced public transport fares,
discounted motor vehicle registration and licence costs.[61]
Apart from the PCC, the Commonwealth offers two other main
concession cards: the Health Care Card (HCC) and the Commonwealth Seniors
Health Card (CSHC).[62]
The HCC is primarily provided to some allowance payment recipients and
low-income earners while the CSHC is provided to those over Age Pension age who
do not qualify for the Age Pension because of their income and asset levels.
The CSHC has an income test but no assets test.
Both the CSHC and HCC provide access to discounted
medicines under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the lower Medicare Safety
Net thresholds and GP bulk-billing incentives but neither card provides access
to the hearing service or Australia Post discounts in the same way as the PCC.[63]
Concessions available from state, territory and local governments also vary
between the type of cards and a more limited range of concessions is available
to HCC and CSHC cardholders in many jurisdictions when compared with the PCC.
CSHC holders also receive a quarterly payment, the Seniors
Supplement, currently worth $1,261.00 per annum for singles and $949.00 per
annum for members of a couple (including the Energy Supplement). In the 2014–15
Budget the Government announced that it would abolish the Seniors Supplement
and pay only the Energy Supplement attached to the supplement to CSHC holders.
Provisions to implement the measure were included in the No. 1 Bill and the
Seniors Supplement Bill. Provisions to cease payment of the Seniors Supplement
from 20 June 2015 were also included in Schedule 4 of the Bill when
introduced.
Most of those over Age Pension age who lose eligibility
for the pension as a result of the proposed asset test changes will likely
qualify for the CSHC anyway (as it is their assets which prevent them
qualifying for the pension and their income is likely to be below the CSHC
income test). Those younger than Age Pension age affected by the measure (such
as Disability Support Pensioners and Carer Payment recipients) may qualify for
the HCC due to receipt of another eligible payment such as maximum rate Family
Tax Benefit Part A or because they have a low income. The measure proposed by
the Bill will ensure that any pensioner who loses eligibility for the PCC as a
result of the change on 1 January 2017 will automatically be granted a
concession card (a CSHC for those over Age Pension age or HCC for those under
Age Pension age). This will ensure that no pensioners affected by the measure
miss out on a concession card due to their income. While providing a more
limited range of benefits when compared to the PCC, those pensioners affected
by this measure will remain eligible for the most valuable
concession—discounted medicines under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
Perverse incentives
Since the assets changes were announced, there have been a
range of media reports and articles suggesting that the measures will see
pensioners spend their savings or investments to remain under the asset-test
limits or redirect their investments towards an asset excluded from the test:
the family home.[64]
That is, the measure will have perverse incentives for pensioners to frit away
any savings or attempt to circumvent the means testing regime.
DSS has stated that the measure does not give rise to such
incentives as pensioners who do deliberately dissipate large amounts of their
assets will not be better off:
A pensioner who reduced their assets by $50,000 to qualify
for a higher pension payment would take more than 35 years to break even,
assuming a long term investment return averaging 5%.
-
The most that spending $50,000 could affect a person’s pension under the
new $3 per $1,000 taper rate is $150 a fortnight, or $3,900 a year. The person
would also forgo interest of $2,500 a year that they could otherwise have
earned. As such, the net benefit in pure income terms might be around $1,400 a
year only. It would take over 35 years before the person recouped their
$50,000.[65]
Some of these reports are based on errors in understanding
how the means test applies, including that both an income and assets test
applies and that most assets are assessed as earning income. Others seem to
place significant value in a small rate of part-pension, over the possible
returns from long-term investments.
DSS states that there is no evidence that people
deliberately spend money or over-invest in housing in order to gain a pension
advantage and that doing so would reduce the financial capacity of these
retirees to enjoy a higher standard of living (i.e. having capital they can
draw on easily).[66]
At play in most of these reports are differing values over
the amount of regular income enjoyed by retirees versus capital, and whether
certain investments are intended to support the costs of living for retirees or
preserved for family members.[67]
As noted above, the Government is of the view that assets over a certain level
allow retirees to enjoy a higher standard of living for a longer period than
those with low levels of assets and those reliant on the pension. The Government
also holds that retirees should draw on whatever assets they have available to
them in their retirement and the Age Pension is not intended as an income
supplement or inheritance program.[68]
Alternative proposals
An array of academics, think tanks and stakeholder groups
have put forward alternative proposals to address issues with the retirement
income system, particularly in regards to assets test. These include:
- lower
asset test free areas and a higher taper rate[69]
- including
the family home in the assets test[70]
- allowing
pensioners to draw upon their home equity via a government administered or
guaranteed reverse mortgage scheme[71]
- restoring
a version of the merged means test where all assets are assessed as having
deemed income.[72]
The reform suggestions which look at housing equity are
aimed at addressing the distortionary effects the current means testing
arrangements have in terms of incentivising housing investments above all other
kinds of investment and allowing for a significant asset to be completely excluded
from the assessment of an individual’s need for government income support.
Reforms in terms of a single means test with deemed income from assets are
aimed at simplifying the system, providing for a more equitable treatments of
assets and/or removing incentives to game the system.
There have also been many calls for reform of the
superannuation system, particularly in regards to tax concessions, to reduce
outlays on the Age Pension and improve the revenue base that will fund these
outlays into the future.[73]
Position of non-government parties
As discussed above, Labor is opposed to the asset test
changes while the Australian Greens have stated their support for the changes.
Labor has cited the fact that many pensioners will face
reductions in their pension rates or lose eligibility for the pension
altogether as the reason for their opposition:
People who have saved hard all their lives, people who’ve
worked hard and saved hard, deserve our respect in their retirement. They don't
deserve to have a Government come after their savings in their retirement and
that is exactly what Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey are doing.[74]
The Opposition has drawn on the modelling work by Industry
Super Australia which looked at the potential long‑term impact of the
changes, particularly on new retirees, to criticise the measure. Shadow
Minister for Families and Payments Jenny Macklin stated:
Independent analysis shows that these new
cuts will affect half of all new retirees within ten years.
It shows more than a million retirees will
be affected by these cuts, including 700,000 people who will retire in the next
decade.
Some single pensioners will lose more than
$8,000 a year - a quarter of their yearly income of $36,000.[75]
Leader of the Opposition Bill Shorten has argued that it’s
unfair the Government has brought in changes affecting part-pensioners while
not addressing tax concessions provided to retirees with millions of dollars’
worth of superannuation investments.[76]
Australian Greens senators have argued that the measures
will make the pension system fairer and ‘undo John Howard’s tampering with
taper rates’. The Greens hold that issues to do with superannuation tax
concessions will be examined as part of the Tax Review process.[77]
Position of interest groups
The proposed changes to the assets test have received some
support from the welfare sector but are criticised by other stakeholders.
The Australian Council of Social Service and National
Welfare Rights Network have offered qualified support for the measures.[78]
COTA Australia, a peak body for older Australians, has raised concerns with the
measure, particularly the impact on those with assets earning relatively low
returns.[79]
COTA Australia considers it a piecemeal change when a broad review of the
entire retirement incomes system is needed.[80]
National Seniors has criticised the measures as ‘unfair’ and
supported Labor’s opposition to the changes.[81]
Industry Super Australia has strongly opposed the changes in
its submission to the Senate inquiry, citing the long-term impact on average
and below average income earners today.[82]
Comment
The measures proposed in Schedule 3 essentially reverse the
generous measure implemented by the Howard Government in its last year in
office (halving the assets test taper rate) while softening the impact on those
with modest assets by raising the free areas. The Howard Government’s Super
Simpler measures were aimed at boosting retirement incomes and encouraging
superannuation investment and were implemented at a time when there was little
concern at the growing cost of the Age Pension. This issue is now of great
concern to the Government and it has attempted to implement significant, yet
controversial, savings measures to reduce future outlays on income support for
seniors. The indexation measure put forward in last year’s Budget would have
affected every pensioner and reduced the rate at which their payment increased
over time. In the face of widespread opposition, the Government has replaced it
with a measure that will still deliver budget savings but which will have its
greatest impact on those with significant financial resources. The measure is
in line with the broad principles behind the design of Australia’s welfare
system in that it ensures assistance is targeted at the most needy.
The measure will impact on many future retirees, who will
end their working life with higher levels of financial assets than previous
generations. Yet the impact will be that these retirees will need to draw on
these assets more than otherwise would have occurred, not serious levels of
deprivation.
There are arguments to be made as to whether this is the
most effective option to address the fiscal strain caused by an ageing
population and/or whether it is the fairest. These arguments point to a need raised
by most of the submissions to the Senate inquiry on the Bill and in the broader
debate on the measures, that the measures are being implemented in isolation
from a broad retirement income strategy, and before a serious public analysis
of all the reform options available has been undertaken. Given the large impact
any change to the retirement income system can have, with long-term effects on
current workers and their retirement plans, any reform process should proceed
cautiously, be consultative and involve careful analysis of other options and
their impact.
Provisions
Items 1–36 of Schedule 3 amend the Social Security
Act 1991 (the SS Act)[83]
at various points to amend the asset test limits for Widow Allowance, Parenting
Payment, Youth Allowance (for those considered independent)[84], Austudy, Newstart Allowance, Sickness Allowance, Special
Benefit, and Partner Allowance to the levels outlined above in Table 2,
above (as applicable on 1 January 2017).
Items 37– 57 amend the SS Act at various
points to amend the pension asset test free areas or asset value limits
(including for Age Pension, Disability Support Pension, Carer Payment, and
Widow B Pension) to the relevant level outlined above in Table 2. The items
also amend the formula for calculating the pension rate reduction for assets
that exceed the free areas at point 1064-G4, point 1066-G4 and 1066A-H4 of
the SS Act. Currently, the calculators work by multiplying any asset
values in excess of the free area (any part of this excess that is not a
multiple of $250 is not included in the calculation) by 9.75 and dividing this
total by 250. This provides the dollar amount by which a person’s annual
pension payment is reduced. The current effect of this calculator is that every
$1,000 of assets over the free area reduces a pensioner’s payment by $39.00 per
year ($1.50 per fortnight). The amendments at items 43, 50 and 57 double
the multiplier in this formula from 9.75 to 19.5. This has the effect of
reducing a pensioner’s payment by $78.00 per year ($3.00 per fortnight).
Item 58 doubles a rate similar to the taper rate in a
formula at section 1130 which assesses whether a person might be able to
access a pension under financial hardship rules. In effect, the amendment
doubles the amount included for each $250 of assets as part of the person’s
total adjusted ordinary annual rate of income. This test only
applies in relation to assessing financial hardship.
Items 59–61 increase the asset test limits that apply
in relation to certain special residents (for illness-separated couples where
one or both members of the couples are residing in a retirement home or aged
care facility) at paragraphs 1152(5)(g), 1153(3)(e) and 1154(2)(f) of the SS
Act to $237,500.
Item 62 inserts subsections 1192(5C) to (5H)
to provide for the new asset test free areas or limits to be indexed on 1
July 2017. These amounts are indexed to CPI annually. Amendments made by items
77 and 78 to the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014
Budget Measures No. 6) Act 2014 will repeal an indexation freeze that was
to apply to these limits for three years from 1 July 2017.[85]
Items 64–76 make similar amendments to the Veterans’
Entitlements Act 1986 (the VE Act) as were made to the SS Act to
increase the asset test free areas for the Service Pension and Income Support
Supplement, double the rate reduction for assets that exceed the free areas and
ensure the new free areas are indexed to CPI from 1 July 2017.[86]
Items 79–84 amends the SS Act to provide for a
CSHC or HCC to be provided to any person whose social security pension rate was
reduced to nil on 1 January 2017 because of the amendments made by the
preceding items in this Schedule. The amendments provide for the CSHC income
test and the HCC income test to not apply to those individuals who lose
eligibility for a pension as a direct result of the changes to assets test
proposed by this Schedule. The age requirements for the cards will still apply
so the CSHC will be issued to those over age pension age and the HCC to those
below age pension age. The amendments also ensure that claims do not need to be
made for the cards (the Department of Human Services will determine those
eligible automatically) and those overseas on 1 January 2017 who meet the
criteria will also not have to make a claim for the card so long as they return
to Australia within 19 weeks of the day they left Australia. While no claim
will need to be made for the HCC cards, they are not to be treated as
‘automatic issue health care cards’ for the purposes of social security
law—there are differences in the claims process and benefits for HCCs
automatically issued to those in receipt of certain payments and HCCs issued to
those who meet an income-test.[87]
HCCs issued to those affected by the asset-test changes entitle the holders to
the same benefits as income-tested HCC holders.
Items 85–92 amend the Social Security
(Administration) Act 1999 to ensure that certain claim requirements do not
apply to those who qualify for a CSHC or HCC under the provisions inserted by
items 79–84. The items also ensure that cards issued to those who lose their
pension as a result of the proposed assets test changes are not affected by the
general expiry date and replacement issues rules that apply to other
cardholders. While nominal expiry dates may be placed on the card, expired
cards issued to those who qualify in the above circumstances will be
automatically replaced.
Items 93–98 make similar amendments to the VE Act
to provide for a CSHC to be issued to recipients of the Service Pension or
Income Support Supplement who have their payment rate reduced to nil as a
result of the changes to the asset test proposed by this Schedule.
Members, Senators and Parliamentary staff
can obtain further information from the Parliamentary Library on (02) 6277 2500.
[1]. See
‘Social
Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Fair and Sustainable Pensions) Bill
2015: Amendments’, 18 June 2015, accessed 19 June 2015.
[2]. Supplementary
Explanatory Memorandum, Social
Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Fair and Sustainable Pensions) Bill
2015, accessed 19 June 2015.
[3]. Parliament
of Australia, ‘Social
Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures No. 1) Bill 2014
homepage’, Australian Parliament website, accessed 4 June 2015; Parliament
of Australia, ‘Social
Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures No. 2) Bill 2014
homepage’, Australian Parliament website, accessed 4 June 2015.
[4]. Parliament
of Australia, ‘Social
Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Seniors Supplement Cessation) Bill
2014 homepage’, Australian Parliament website, accessed 4 June 2015.
[5]. Parliament
of Australia, ‘Social
Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures No. 4) Bill 2014
homepage’, Australian Parliament website, accessed 4 June 2015.
[6]. Parliament
of Australia, ‘Social
Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures No. 5) Bill 2014
homepage’, Australian Parliament website, accessed 4 June 2015.
[7]. Parliament
of Australia, ‘Social
Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures No. 6) Bill 2014
homepage’, Australian Parliament website, accessed 4 June 2015.
[8]. The
No. 6 Bill included measures to cease indexation of the Clean Energy Supplement
(and rename it the Energy Supplement), pause indexation of assets test limits
and free areas for all payments, change portability arrangements for student
payments and Disability Support Pension, include untaxed superannuation income
in the income test for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card, remove Relocation
Scholarships for students relocating within and between major cities, remove a
supplementary amount paid to large families receiving Family Tax Benefit Part A
(FTB-A), change the income test for FTB-A, and reduce the primary earner income
limit for FTB-B from $150,000 per annum to $100,000 per annum.
[9]. The
Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures No. 2)
Bill 2014, was discharged from the Notice Paper in the Senate on 28 October
2014. The Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures
No. 5) Bill 2014, was introduced into the House of Representative on 2 October
2014 but has not progressed beyond the Minister’s second reading motion.
Parliament of Australia, ‘Social
Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures No. 2) Bill 2014
homepage’, Australian Parliament website,
accessed 4 June 2015. Parliament of Australia, ‘Social
Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures No. 5) Bill 2014
homepage’, Australian Parliament website, accessed 4 June 2015.
[10]. For
a discussion of these measures see C Ey, M Klapdor, M Thomas and P Yeend, Social
Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures No. 2) Bill 2014,
Bill digest, 16, 2014–15, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2014, accessed 19
June 2015.
[11]. Australian
Government, Budget
measures: budget paper no. 2: 2015–16, pp. 169–170.
[12]. B
Shorten (Opposition Leader) and J Macklin (Shadow Minister for Families and
Payments), Transcript
of press conference, Parliament House, Canberra, media release, 16 June
2015, accessed 19 June 2015.
[13]. Ibid.
[14]. R
Di Natale and R Siewert, Greens
to reverse Howard-era pension mistake, secure retirement income review,
media release, 16 June 2015, accessed 19 June 2015.
[15]. Ibid.
[16]. Ibid.
[17]. ‘Social
Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Fair and Sustainable Pensions) Bill
2015: Amendments’, 18 June 2015, accessed 19 June 2015.
[18]. C
Pyne (Leader of the House and Minister for Education and Training), ‘Motions:
dissent from ruling’, House of Representatives, Debates,
18 June 2015, p. 44, accessed19 June 2015.
[19]. Senate
Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Fair and Sustainable Pensions)
Bill 2015, The Senate, 2015, accessed 22 June 2015.
[20]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Alert
Digest No. 6 of 2015, The Senate, Canberra, 17 June 2015, p. 53,
accessed 22 June 2015.
[21]. The
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights can be found at page 28 of the Explanatory
Memorandum to the Bill.
[22]. Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights, Twenty-third
report of the 44th Parliament, The Senate, Canberra, 18 June 2015, p.
3, accessed 22 June 2015.
[23]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Social
Services Legislation Amendment (Fair and Sustainable Pensions) Bill 2015,
p. 2, accessed 10 June 2015.
[24]. Australian
Government, Budget
measures: budget paper no. 2: 2015–16, pp. 169–170.
[25]. See,
for example, J Thomas, ‘Second
reading speech: Invalid and Old-Age Pensions Bill’, House of
Representatives, Debates, 3 June 1908, p. 11,959, accessed 16 June
2015; T H Kewley, Social Security in Australia 1900–72, Sydney
University Press, Sydney, 1973, p. 73.
[26]. Kewley,
op. cit., p. 73.
[27]. D
Daniels, Social
security payments for the aged, people with disabilities and carers 1901 to
2010, Background note, 2010–11, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 21
February 2011, p. 30, accessed 17 June 2015.
[28]. Ibid.
[29]. Ibid.
[30]. Ibid.,
pp. 30–31.
[31]. Ibid.,
p. 31.
[32]. Ibid.
[33]. Ibid.
[34]. Ibid.
[35]. Ibid.
[36]. Ibid.
[37]. Australian
Government, Budget
2006–07: a plan to simplify and streamline superannuation, 9 May 2006,
p. 11, accessed 16 June 2015; Australian Government, A
plan to simplify and streamline superannuation: detailed outline, May
2006, accessed 16 June 2015.
[38]. Ibid.
[39]. S
Morrison, ‘Second
reading speech: Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Fair and
Sustainable Pensions) Bill 2015’, House of Representatives, Debates,
4 June 2015, p. 2, accessed 19 June 2015.
[40]. DSS,
Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Fair and Sustainable Pensions) Bill 2015,
11 June 2015, p. 9, accessed 15 June 2015; Australian Government, 2015
Intergenerational report: Australia in 2055, The Treasury, Canberra,
2015, p. 69, accessed 19 June 2015.
[41]. Australian Government, Budget strategy and outlook: budget paper no. 1: 2015–16, pp. 5–13, accessed 19 June 2015. This total
includes expenditure on Widow B Pension and Wife Pension (Age).
[42]. J
Macklin (Shadow Minister for Families and Payments), ‘Second
reading speech: Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Fair and
Sustainable Pensions) Bill 2015’, House of Representatives, Debates,
17 June 2015, p. 95, accessed 19 June 2015.
[43]. B
Shorten and J Macklin, Transcript
of press conference, Parliament House, Canberra, op. cit.
[44]. DSS,
Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, op. cit., p. 8.
[45]. Ibid.
[46]. Ibid.
[47]. Ibid.
[48]. Ibid.
[49]. Ibid.,
p. 18.
[50]. Tax
and Transfer Policy Institute (Australian National University), Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Fair and Sustainable Pensions) Bill 2015,
12 June 2015, pp. 4–5.
[51]. DSS,
Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, op. cit., p. 11.
[52]. See
‘Assessable
assets held by different groups receiving the age pension’, Document tabled
by P McBride (Group Manager, Department of Social Services) in the Senate
Community Affairs Legislation Committee Budget Estimates hearing, 4 June 2015,
accessed 18 June 2015.
[53]. DSS,
Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, op. cit., p. 10.
[54]. Tax
and Transfer Policy Institute, Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, op. cit., p. 5.
[55]. Industry
Super Australia, Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Inquiry into
the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Fair and Sustainable Pensions) Bill
2015, 12 June 2015, p. 11.
[56]. S
Morrison (Minister for Social Services), ‘Opinion: Welfare is about genuine need, not entitlement: it should
not be used as an incentive’, The Advertiser,
7 May 2015, accessed 18 June 2015.
[57]. Ibid.
[58]. S
Morrison (Minister for Social Services), Budget
2015: transcript of doorstop interview: Canberra, media release, 25 May
2015, accessed 18 June 2015.
[59]. Industry
Super Australia, Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, op. cit., p. 4.
[60]. DSS,
Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, op. cit., p. 13.
[61]. Department
of Human Services (DHS), ‘Pensioner
Concession Card’, DHS website, accessed 19 June 2015.
[62]. DHS,
‘Low-Income
Health Care Card’, DHS website, accessed 19 June 2015; DHS, ‘Commonwealth
Seniors Health Card’, DHS website, accessed 19 June 2015.
[63]. The
automatic issue HCC provided to some income support recipients and FTB-A
recipients does provide access to these additional discounts but the card to be
provided under this measure is considered a ‘claim required’ or ‘Low-Income’
HCC which provides more limited benefits. See DHS, ‘Low-Income
Health Care Card’, op. cit.; and DHS, ‘Health
Care Card’, DHS website, accessed 19 June 2015.
[64]. S
Rose, ‘An
Alaskan vacation will save Noelene’s pension’, The Australian Financial
Review, 28 May 2015, accessed 18 June 2015; J Chancellor, ‘Offloading
assets and home upsizing: the maze to keep your part-pension in 2017’, Property
Observer, 13 May 2015, accessed 18 June 2015.
[65]. DSS,
Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, op. cit., p. 12.
[66]. Ibid.
[67]. J
Mather, ‘Treasurer
gets a lesson on a pension paradox’, The Australian Financial Review,
27 May 2015, accessed 19 June 2015.
[68]. S
Morrison (Minister for Social Services), Budget
2015: Transcript of doorstop interview: Canberra, op.
cit.
[69]. Australian
Council of Social Service (ACOSS), Budget
priorities statement 2015–16, ACOSS, Sydney, 2015, accessed 19 June
2015; E Millane, The entitlement of age, Research paper,
Per Capita, August 2014, accessed 19 June 2015.
[70]. S
Cowan and M Taylor, The age old problem of old age: fixing the pension, Research report, 3, Centre for Independent Studies, April 2015,
accessed 19 June 2015; J Daley and C McGannon, Budget pressures on Australian governments 2014, Report, 2014-7, Grattan Institute, May 2014, accessed 19 June 2015.
[71]. E
Millane, op. cit.; S Cowan and M Taylor, op. cit.; R Denniss and
T Swann, Boosting retirement incomes the easy way,
, Technical brief, 34, The Australia Institute, Canberra, September 2014,
accessed 19 June 2015.
[72]. Tax
and Transfer Policy Institute, Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, op. cit., pp. 8–11.
[73]. For
example, E Millane, op. cit.; J Daley and C McGannon, op. cit.
[74]. B
Shorten and J Macklin, Transcript
of press conference, Parliament House, Canberra, op. cit.
[75]. B
Shorten (Leader of the Opposition) and J Macklin (Shadow Minister for Families
and Payments), Labor
will fight Tony Abbott’s attack on pensions, media release, 16 June
2015, accessed 19 June 2015.
[76]. B
Shorten and J Macklin, Transcript
of press conference, Parliament House, Canberra, op. cit.
[77]. R
Di Natale and R Siewert, op. cit.
[78]. ACOSS,
Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Inquiry into
the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Fair and Sustainable Pensions) Bill
2015, 16 June 2015, accessed 19 June 2015; National Welfare Rights Network,
Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Inquiry into
the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Fair and Sustainable Pensions) Bill
2015, 12 June 2015, accessed 19 June 2015.
[79]. COTA
Australia, Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Inquiry into
the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Fair and Sustainable Pensions) Bill
2015, June 2015, accessed 19 June 2015.
[80]. Ibid.
[81]. National
Seniors, Seniors
welcome stance to protect mid to low income retirees, media release, 16
June 2015, accessed 19 June 2015.
[82]. Industry
Super Australia, Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, op. cit.
[83]. Social Security Act 1991,
accessed 22 June 2015.
[84]. Non-independent
Youth Allowance recipients are subject to a separate means testing regime which
takes into account their family’s means. See DHS, ‘Income
and assets test for Youth Allowance’, DHS website, accessed 19 June 2015.
Note that the Government has proposed changes to this family means test, see: M
Klapdor, ‘Family
payments’, Budget review 2015–16, Research paper series, 2014–15,
Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2015, accessed 19 June 2015.
[85]. Social Services and
Other Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures No. 6) Act 2014,
accessed 22 June 2015.
[86]. Veterans' Entitlements
Act 1986, accessed 22 June 2015.
[87]. See
footnote 63.
For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Creative Commons
With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.
In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.
To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.
Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.
Disclaimer: Bills Digests are prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament. They are produced under time and resource constraints and aim to be available in time for debate in the Chambers. The views expressed in Bills Digests do not reflect an official position of the Australian Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion. Bills Digests reflect the relevant legislation as introduced and do not canvass subsequent amendments or developments. Other sources should be consulted to determine the official status of the Bill.
Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Entry Point for referral.