New Design
  1. Enable New Design

Opposition leader signals Centrelink cuts! Here’s what they don't want you to know

News & Politics

Opposition leader signals Centrelink cuts! Here’s what they don't want you to know

  • Maan
  • By Maan
1758158671357.png Opposition leader signals Centrelink cuts! Here’s what they don't want you to know
Age Pension lifeline under political threat. Image source: Pexels/Kindel Media | Disclaimer: This is a stock image used for illustrative purposes only and does not depict the actual person, item, or event described.

The numbers painted a sobering picture of modern Australia. Nearly two in three older Australians depended on the Age Pension to survive, with many saying it was the thin line between security and hardship. Now, Sussan Ley’s warning suggested that this fragile balance could soon be under threat.




In her first major economic speech as Opposition Leader, Ley argued that Australia’s welfare system had created too much dependency. She declared it had become ‘taboo’ to suggest that ‘not everyone is entitled to every government benefit.’ For millions of seniors who relied on the pension system, her words raised fears of potential changes that could reshape their financial stability.



In this article



The First Woman at the Helm



Ley made history as the first woman to lead the Liberal Party, the Coalition, and serve as Leader of the Opposition at the federal level. Yet her rise was not built on symbolism alone.



Her background included a Bachelor of Economics, Master of Taxation Law, and a Master of Accounting—credentials that gave her economic arguments weight. Before entering Parliament in 2001, she worked as a commercial pilot, a farmer, and later as a senior officer with the Australian Taxation Office, eventually becoming Director of Technical Training.



Her path was far from smooth. She resigned as Health Minister in 2017 amid controversy over travel expenses. But her narrow victory over Angus Taylor in the leadership ballot, with 29 votes to 25, showed the party placed its confidence in her economic credibility.




‘Unfortunately, in the past few years, the pendulum has swung too far toward dependency.’

Sussan Ley, Committee for Economic Development of Australia




The Age Pension in Real Life



The Age Pension was not simply a number on a government ledger. It was the primary income source for 39 per cent of Australians over 67 receiving the full pension and 24 per cent receiving a part pension.



For single pensioners, the maximum payment was $959.70 per fortnight, or about $24,952 per year. For many, this modest amount allowed them to pay rent, keep food on the table, and maintain independence.



In September 2025, indexation brought a small but welcome rise—an extra $29.70 per fortnight for singles. While a relief, these increases often barely kept pace with rising living costs.



Beyond the base payment, seniors relied on a patchwork of supplements and concessions. The Energy Supplement provided help with power bills. Pharmaceutical allowances cut the cost of essential medicines. The Pensioner Concession Card meant discounted transport, cheaper healthcare, and utility relief. For those living with chronic conditions or in areas with limited public transport, these benefits were not perks but lifelines.




Age Pension Basics (September 2025)


Singles: $959.70 per fortnight ($24,952 per year)


Couples (each): $774.30 per fortnight ($20,132 per year)


Includes pension supplement and energy supplement—Automatic increases every March and September based on inflation—Recipients also receive Pensioner Concession Card benefits





A Spending Debate with High Stakes



Ley argued that government spending had reached 27 per cent of gross domestic product—the highest level outside of a recession since 1986. Her claim tapped into long-standing debates about dependency versus sustainability.



The numbers told another story, however. In 2021–22, welfare services and payments amounted to $212.4 billion, with the Commonwealth funding 88 per cent of that figure.



Compared internationally, Australia’s spending was far from extravagant. Countries like Finland spent 22 per cent of GDP on welfare, while Italy and France hovered around 21 per cent. Australia’s expenditure sat below the OECD median, showing a more restrained system than many believed.




Safety Net or Dependency Trap?



At the heart of Ley’s speech was a philosophical question. She warned that ‘a welfare system that attempts to be all things to all people will eventually collapse under its own weight.’



Critics of welfare expansion argued it discouraged work and saving. Supporters countered that pensions upheld dignity and security for those who had worked all their lives.



For seniors, the debate carried special weight. Unlike unemployment benefits, the Age Pension was not temporary but permanent recognition that decades of labour deserved security in retirement. Many older Australians had spent their working years before compulsory superannuation existed, leaving them reliant on government support as a necessity rather than a choice.




Where Might the Cuts Land?



Ley had not yet specified what changes a Coalition government might pursue. But her emphasis on ‘genuine need’ suggested stricter means testing could be on the horizon.



That could mean part-pension recipients—often with modest savings or assets—might lose access. Supplementary payments, such as the Energy or Pharmaceutical Supplements, might be reduced or eliminated.



Eligibility for concession cards could be tightened, leaving many seniors paying more for healthcare and transport. Home care packages, already stretched thin, could face further delays or reduced funding.



Did you know?


Australia’s Age Pension history Australia’s Age Pension was first introduced in 1909, making it one of the earliest old-age pensions in the world. It began as a means-tested payment for those over 65 who had lived in Australia for at least 25 years. Today, means testing remains, but with more generous income and asset thresholds.




More than Numbers: The Human Impact



The risks of welfare cuts extended far beyond budget figures. For many seniors, the Age Pension supported basic housing stability. Rent assistance made the difference between keeping a roof overhead or slipping into homelessness.



Healthcare was another critical area. Bulk billing and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme subsidies meant retirees could afford to see doctors and buy prescriptions. Without these, chronic illnesses could quickly spiral into crises.



Even social connection depended on concessions. Discounted fares let seniors visit family, attend community events, and maintain vital support networks.



And then there was dignity. A regular, reliable income allowed older Australians to manage small luxuries, unexpected bills, or simple independence without leaning on family.



The COVID-19 pandemic showed how fragile life could be. Seniors were hit hardest by isolation and rising costs, and government support proved critical. Cuts now, many argued, could leave them dangerously exposed to the next crisis.




Learning from Abroad



Other nations had grappled with similar dilemmas. In the United Kingdom, post-GFC austerity measures slashed services, and older people bore much of the burden. Nordic countries, by contrast, maintained generous welfare and still managed robust growth.



The lesson seemed clear: balance was difficult but possible. Sustainability need not mean stripping away dignity.



The Political Divide



The Albanese Government resisted claims of reckless spending. They pointed to achieving budget surpluses in their first term before a return to deficit, and argued recent spending was necessary to support health, disability services, and cost-of-living relief during inflationary pressures.



Labor claimed that sustaining welfare bolstered consumer confidence and preserved Australia’s AAA credit rating. Cutting payments during a cost-of-living crisis, they warned, risked worsening the economy by slashing the spending power of low-income households.




What This Means for Australian Seniors



  • No immediate changes are proposed—this is opposition policy positioning

  • Any cuts would likely affect part-pension recipients first

  • Supplementary payments and concessions could face review

  • International comparisons suggest Australia’s welfare spending is moderate

  • Stay informed through official government sources about any proposed changes

  • Consider reviewing your financial situation and exploring additional income sources





Preparing for an Uncertain Future



For now, Age Pension recipients continued receiving payments as usual. But the debate stirred unease about what might come next.



Financial experts urged seniors to review income sources, consider whether part-time work or additional super contributions were feasible, and seek advice from financial counsellors where possible.



Community groups and advocacy organisations remained vital voices, providing seniors with updates and pushing back against proposals that threatened vulnerable groups. Staying connected to Services Australia and the Department of Social Services also ensured access to accurate information rather than speculation.



The Bigger Picture



Ley described her approach as ‘sustainable compassion’—an attempt to protect those most in need while trimming what she considered excess. But defining ‘genuine need’ would always be contentious.



With an ageing population and increasing life expectancy, the pressure on welfare would only intensify. For many seniors, the pension was not about dependency but about the social contract that recognised their contribution to the nation.



Her narrow leadership victory suggested even within her own party, opinions differed on how far reforms should go. The future of welfare remained an open debate—one that would likely dominate political discourse in the years to come.



What This Means For You


The Age Pension supported nearly two-thirds of Australians over 67, making it a cornerstone of retirement security for most seniors. Yet Sussan Ley’s warning that welfare dependency had gone too far raised fears that stricter means testing could be on the way. This came despite the fact that Australia’s welfare spending sat below the OECD median, challenging the idea that the nation was overspending.



For older Australians, the reality was clear—any cuts would not just be numbers on a budget sheet but would hit housing, healthcare, and dignity directly. Seniors who had worked their whole lives to build modern Australia deserved stability in retirement, not uncertainty about losing the support that kept them afloat.




The debate over welfare reform isn’t just political—it has very real consequences for those who rely on payments to make ends meet.



One recent change already making waves involves the government’s deeming rates, which directly affect how much support recipients keep in their pocket.



To understand how quickly a policy shift can reduce payments, here’s a closer look at a major update that recently hit thousands of people.



Read more: Your age pension could drop by $203 a fortnight: Major deeming rate changes hit 460,000 Australians





Losing access to a pension is more than losing money—it is losing independence, dignity, and peace of mind—so what part of this welfare debate worries you the most?

Seniors Discount Club

Sponsored content

Info
Loading data . . .
Clearly the LNP are not looking to govern for quite some time imo. This completely overlooks the LNP's previous stance against the Super concession being limited to $3m, when they argued it would affect everyone in their lifetime. Which means, within 30yrs everyone will have over $3m in super and none will need a pension, u can't have it both ways Sussan. Sure, a lot rely on welfare currently because Super wasn't something everyone could afford, but that is changing thanks to the ALP. As far as Health goes, the LNP have always opposed Public Health that is not new, they believe if u want a bigger house, get a better job like they did, but we can't all be Politicians or CEOs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PattiB
Mabe just Mabe if you write to Pauline Hanson, your fears could and would be resolved.
She in my opinion is the REAL POLLIE who cares about US and AUST.
The rest couldn't give a RATS about PENSIONERS.
The real ones who were born here, or migrated here and spent their whole WORKING LIFE HERE.
They are the real PENSIONERS.
Doh, Freddo
 
Firstly, in any system as large as Social Security there will be some rorting. A government can always work on this. But generally, people who receive relief from this system need it. The vast majority of us are not on a social security payment, including the pension, because we want to be or because we lived a wasteful lifestyle. I don't care who you vote for, but this once again shows the Libs true colours. They prorect the wealthy and rob from the struggling to reward the wealthy. As others have commented, these pollies have no idea what it is like to struggle financially. We paid tax all of our lives. We worked all of our lives. We had super. It is not our fault that conditions, often created by pollies, changed to such an extent, that many of us who thought we would retire in a position where we could support ourselves, could not once the time came. It was your fault Susan Ley, not ours!!!!!It was the fault of those who have financial security and their greed to always want more than they have.
 
It is typical of someone in the liberal government, their first thought is to slash pensions, increase taxes for the average worker and make it harder on those who have come to an age where due to age or illness can't work and now on a pension. Instead of decreasing what those who have much higher brackets of earnings including those in government. Most higher up people in government when they retire from politics get huge pensions and many over the years have become CEO's of some company and received and absurd amount of money and still have their government pension and are not means tested. I always remember a saying my mother used to say People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. something those in government should consider, the older australians and those heading in that direction are not stupid.
 
My wife and I receive part Pension. On retirement we both received full pension and a modest annuity from my super and then our pension was reduced when my wife reached retirement age and her modest super($120,000) was assessed. We have combined $446,000 in our pension fund which pays a small annuity. Our pension is reduced because our assets are over the minimum. We own our home and all assets. No debt. We have got to this position with frugality spending and prudent investing through our working lives. Any reduction on government payments would mean a drop in our quality of life.
Meanwhile every Politician retires a multimillionaire on a full pension and perks at +50 while working for some corporation they helped along the way, and that is not open to review.
 
The current number of people on the pension will decrease significantly over the next 30 years because those in their 30's now will have big superannuation funds and be potentially self funded retirees. Those of us in our 70's and beyond didn't have the luxury of superannuation, so I think Sussan has forgotten that. Currently the pension is below the poverty line, so any decrease would be a disaster. This is very disappointing as I've always been a conservative voter.
 
The current number of people on the pension will decrease significantly over the next 30 years because those in their 30's now will have big superannuation funds and be potentially self funded retirees. Those of us in our 70's and beyond didn't have the luxury of superannuation, so I think Sussan has forgotten that. Currently the pension is below the poverty line, so any decrease would be a disaster. This is very disappointing as I've always been a conservative voter.
Exactly, thanks to the ALP.
 
No matter which way you spin it if you have government debt, you can't have a surplus? all the government is doing is servicing the debt. I'm afraid that for the foreseeable future no matter the party in power, the rider is fast becoming heavier than the horse?
 
They won’t touch their corporate mates, just look at all the resources that we’ve literally given away almost tax free. I used to be a staunch LNP supporter but if she does go ahead with this ,I definitely will join one nation.
Same here. How dare she look at the age pension to make cuts. The age pension
is abysmal, not enough to live on and she wants to cut it.
They need to look at their own government departments, most of which are highly inefficient, to make cuts.
For example, Services Australia.
I have mentioned before that I have four stepdaughters who are in their early fifties. None of them have worked a single day in their lives, they were all on single mum's pensions from their early teens, kept on breeding like rabbits with every Tom, Dick or Harry and none of them were ever single mums, they were always living with someone. They would do things like use their mother's address making out they were living with her.
Two of them were using her address at the same time on one occasion , along with five children. The mother lived in a two bedroom unit. So eight of them there apparently. Why didn't Servuces Australia pick up on this.
Thry were reported to Services Australia on quite a few occasions but nothing ever happened. They now are all on Jobseeker where l guess they'll stay until they qualify for the age pension.
This is going on all over Australua. Everybody knows somebody who is doing this. It's become a generational thing. They need to hire more staff to keep control of this situation or stop paying single mums pensions to children having children. Most of these children grow up neglected as mum is still a kid herself.
I always thought the idea of the single mums pension originally was to give women escaping bad marriages some security. Not to encourage indiscriminate breeding by children , in many cases, just so they don't have to work.
The government hand out money willy nilly all over the place. They need to take a good look at many of these expenses before they start picking on pensioners who, on the whole, have been the backbone of this country.

I think Leys has sunk Liberals chances of ever getting reelected with this stance.
Not only will they not got the pensioners vote, they need to remember that all voters will be pensioners one day.
 
I do agree with a lot of this - people come from other countries that do not have a welfare system and get a hand out straight away !!! we immigrated from the UK in 1974 BUT has to have a job lined up and ready to go when we got here.
You mention your relatives going back to their country of birth but still receive their Aussie pension there seems to be a lot of this and i think it depends on what age they came here at but it happens that they get homesick (my own parents that came out late in life years before me were drawn back to the UK when they retired but although they took their Aussie one with them which was REDUCED by the UK one did eventually give it up) and memories of a happy earlier life can be a big pull. so many people move around our world now lots of brits especially take off to parts of Europe and Asia where there pension goes much further in retirement I'm not sure about the Aussie pension but maybe they should freeze the pension amount that they receive at that point which is the case of the UK one much to the complaints made that after several years of NO indexation or rises given they can now no longer manage!!!!

My husbands aunt and uncle came to Australia in the late 50s. Yes they worked hard but then returned back to Greece in the early 80s I think they lived here for 22 years. They then took the aged pension back with them and only needed to return for 8 weeks every 2 years I think for 10 years then they didn't need to come back.
Their pension was twice as much as an average Greek worker .

By stopping the likes of this the government could save a lot of money which could then be put into our hospitals ect without needing to change pensions of those who have lived all or most of their lives here
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leenie and PattiB
Exactly, thanks to the ALP.
Once upon a time, when member were elected from the shop floor, and not from the saloon bar of the nearest Uni Pub?
 
what does not seem to be mentioned is that Pensioners have been putting the for this benefit via the taxes we paid. As we put in for it the aged pension is OUR OWN MONEY so this idiot moron Susan Ley better wake the fuck and stay away from our own money, maybe we will just remove all of her benefits
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leenie
Leave the pension alone most people on have earned it can’t say the same for many unemployed people who just do not want to work or train for anything but can afford to spend their days on the internet and computers playing games to get unemployment there needs to be more visual interviews and not outsourced to employment companies that are just in for the money. Australia needs to wake up 🥸 how about going back to 2 juniors for every senior and get young people employed
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leenie and tthudson
How about posting what CEOs get and retired politicians for life?along with what assets tests they are ruled by
How about make all politicians save for their own retirement not get a paid pension from the Government. I think they get enough money to be able to put some aside for their own retirement. And forgo pay rises would help with their budget.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leenie
Take away her pension to $24500. See how she could survive.time to go lady...

You will be on the back bench very soon
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leenie
Will SuSSan from the Robodebt Party table a bill suggesting a reduced and means tested pension for politicians?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leenie
Concerned sociopathy that is they will spend a long time in opposition.
 
Lusing the energy supplements would kill me. Essentially that's what greedy governments want!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shaza
Ley will lose my vote on this issue, how about means testing the NDIS, reduce pollies life time super, there are many ways to reduce spending, cutting payments to those that have worked their whole life is not the way, get those on job seeker out and working that’s another saving, immigration spending is another
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leenie

Join the conversation

News, deals, games, and bargains for Aussies over 60. From everyday expenses like groceries and eating out, to electronics, fashion and travel, the club is all about helping you make your money go further.

Seniors Discount Club

The SDC searches for the best deals, discounts, and bargains for Aussies over 60. From everyday expenses like groceries and eating out, to electronics, fashion and travel, the club is all about helping you make your money go further.
  1. New members
  2. Jokes & fun
  3. Photography
  4. Nostalgia / Yesterday's Australia
  5. Food and Lifestyle
  6. Money Saving Hacks
  7. Offtopic / Everything else
  • We believe that retirement should be a time to relax and enjoy life, not worry about money. That's why we're here to help our members make the most of their retirement years. If you're over 60 and looking for ways to save money, connect with others, and have a laugh, we’d love to have you aboard.
  • Advertise with us

User Menu

Enjoyed Reading our Story?

  • Share this forum to your loved ones.
Change Weather Postcode×
Change Petrol Postcode×