A Modest Member of Parliament [Bert Kelly], “Do Australian pensioners get too little?,” The Australian Financial Review, April 8, 1971, p. 3. Reprinted in Economics Made Easy (Adelaide: Brolga Books, 1982), pp. 134-36, as “Welfare State (1).”

Before we start peering into the murky taxation pool, and discuss the different methods by which we could raise money, Eccles thinks I should take another look at the way we spend the money we now raise. He suggested first that I ought to have a look at our social payments, particularly pensions.

I was pleased with Eccles about this. Usually he keeps my political nose hard down on his economic grindstone. So it was gratifying to Mavis and me that he was giving us permission to roll out a few fine phrases and beat the sympathy drum.

In no time at all we had composed a moving piece of prose all about “our senior citizens who had borne the heat and burden of the day while helping to develop this great country of ours.”

Then there was a bit about the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.” Then quite a big bucketful about what wonderful people pensioners were and how we must be more generous to them. There were tears in my eyes when Mavis put the pen down.

The only trouble is that I know, even before taking it along to Eccles to sniff at, that most of this is nonsense, politically popular though it may be.

A large number of pensioners are doing quite well.

For instance, a married pensioner couple can own a house worth $50,000 full of pictures worth $50,000, have two big cars and a speed boat, have other property worth $38,000 together with the income from this property, and still get some pension.

Or another married pensioner couple can have the same house, and motor car and speed boat situation and receive $70 a week in income from various sources, and still get some pension.

This hardly squares with the picture of “poor pensioners” that people have in their minds.

Eccles says that about half the pensioners are getting too little, and the other half are getting too much. He is a hard hearted coot and I don’t suppose he has firm ground on which to stand when he makes that statement. But all the same, there is a lot in what he says.

You take the position of an aged pensioner with considerable means, and compare his position with his brother who is receiving Commonwealth superannuation payments for which he contributed in times past.

The first man gets all kinds of fringe benefits such as reduced bus fares, reduced radio and television fees, reduced telephone rental, reduced entrance to football and, most important, free pensioner medical services, and many other benefits. These are generally accepted to be worth $4 a week. The second brother has to pay his full way for everything just because he isn’t getting a pension.

Eccles says that we could afford to be a lot more generous to people in real need if we had the courage to cease to give to others some of the generous assistance they now receive. He also says that it is worth remembering that most of the money to pay pensions comes from married wage earners who make up the bulk of our taxpayers. And who, indeed, pay most of the income tax.

The Commonwealth now has a total welfare budget of over $1,840m, which works out at close to $370 a year paid by every taxpayer. If more pensions are going to be paid, then more taxes are going to be paid, making it more difficult for the taxpayer to care for himself when he gets old. So more pensioners will line up in 10 years’ time and say, with justification, “We paid taxes to keep others when we were young, now someone should look after us.”

The other part of my speech that I know was nonsense was all that stuff about what wonderful people pensioners are. I used to think that old people automatically were good. But now Fred and I are sneaking up in years. It is true that I try to kid myself and my constituents about my virtue, but nothing can disguise the fact that Fred, as he gets older, is just about the same as when he was younger. To try to fit him with a halo now, just because he is older, is nonsense.

I’m afraid that an article which started off with high hopes that it would be a vote winner has limped lamely to the sad conclusion that we should stop talking sentimental rubbish about the virtue and plight of pensioners.

If we started to look at the problem clear-eyed and stopped giving in to every political wind that blew, and took away some of the benefits we now throw around rather foolishly, then we would indeed be able to help the needy pensioner more generously.