Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Commonwealth Seniors Health Card) Bill 2009. The title of the bill in no way indicates that it takes entitlements away from senior Australians and veterans. If I can wear my previous hat for a moment—I was shadow minister for veterans’ affairs—this government came in saying that it would always protect the rights of veterans and look after them. In my previous capacity I pointed out the way in which entitlements were being taken away from veterans without any indication in the build-up to the election that they would be targeted. Here, again, some veterans will be among those who will lose their entitlement to the Commonwealth seniors health card.

This government has tried to say that it is concerned about the plight of people who are suffering in this financial crisis. It has thrown $42 billion away and plunged us into debt. It is going to try to claw back some of that money by punishing some of the most vulnerable people in our society. These are people who have worked hard and they have done so with the ethic that they do not want to be dependent upon government, that they want to provide for themselves and that they want to be proudly called self-funded retirees. For those purposes they have sacrificed the spending of money—on holidays and all sorts of things that folk do—in order to save and provide for the time when they would no longer be in the paid workforce.

As part of recognising that these people had indeed worked so hard to not be a burden on the remaining taxpayers, they were given access to the seniors health card. The card is means tested. The test is $50,000 for an individual and $80,000 for a couple. The test was never indexed; it remained at that figure. Many people will ask why it was not indexed. The answer is that it was felt that that was a reasonable limit at which people would become eligible for the card. As my colleague the member for Pearce pointed out in her speech a little earlier, with this card people have access to discounted pharmaceuticals. This is of enormous value to older Australians because they are such great users of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. They need access to the drugs that are available for keeping them in good health. The card gives them discounted access to these drugs, which is very important for maintaining their health and their lifestyles.

The member for Pearce pointed out the difference that that will make in terms of being eligible for the safety net. If you are indeed entitled to the health card, the safety net clicks in at $318 a year, but if you are not eligible for the card it clicks in at $1,264. The difference of close to $1,000 is an enormous amount if you are on a fixed income. The term ‘fixed income’ has taken on a new meaning that no-one thought it would. A so-called fixed income is becoming less and less, and more and more people who considered that they had provided adequately for themselves—self-funded retirees—are going to have to become part pensioners or become more dependent on the part pension than they were before.

This is an initiative that the government announced at the time of the budget in May last year, before we saw what was happening to the economy and to people’s incomes, and they are still pressing ahead with it. They will spend nearly $20 million over four years to gather in $84 million. Look at that in the context of the $42 billion that is being pitched out, or splashed out. Look at the $75 million that was paid to pensioners living overseas who are entitled to the $900 that went out as part of the $42 billion. That did not need to be paid out. It was supposed to be a stimulus package for the Australia economy, not for overseas economies. That $75 million could have been kept here in Australia and then this mean initiative, which saves $84 million over four years, would not be necessary.

How do the government justify not being able to go over this part of their budget, when they can plunge the country into debt of up to $200 billion? That is what the bill that they brought in has authorised them to go out and borrow. And look at the impact of that. On the one hand they are saying, ‘We’ll guarantee deposits in banks so there will be money that small businesses can borrow against and use to stay in business and keep employing people,’ and on the other hand they are saying, ‘We’re going to plunge the entire community into enormous debt’—and it looks like they are going to borrow the money domestically. So the government will now be in competition with the private sector for the money that is guaranteed in the banks so that they can finance their debt. I understand they will be paying a bond rate of about 6.25 per cent. So guess who will be buying up those bonds? The banks. So the government will be in direct competition with the private sector—the businesses that are providing jobs—for the very money that would enable them to stay in business, by plunging us into debt with a $42 billion package that in no way benefits the people of Australia in a long-term sense.

What is the cry? ‘Here, have $900 each and go out and spend it, and we hope that will keep people in jobs,’ they say. The reality is that businesses that can survive this financial crisis are not being allowed to have access to finance because the government are in competition for that same dollar. Part of that splash of money was $75 million paid instantly to overseas people who need not have been in receipt of that money at all. It could have offset the $84 million that is going to be the net saving over four years as a result of taking away the entitlement of a health card which enables people to stay healthy. What meanness and trickiness is that! Where is the morality in a decision like that? The government seem able to reconsider all sorts of things, but not when it comes to older Australians and what this will mean to them.

As the member for Pearce clearly said, the Commonwealth seniors health card provides access to discounted pharmaceuticals through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the threshold for the safety net cuts in at $318 instead of $1,264. The Commonwealth seniors health card currently provides older Australians with access to the seniors concession allowance—that is the one that we established as a one-off payment every now and again; the telephone allowance, which is meaningful, particularly for the internet; and the seniors’ $500 bonus. And there are other things that they are eligible for. At the discretion of providers, they may benefit from concessions, such as medical bulk-billing, household, transport, education and entertainment facilities. By taking away their eligibility for the card, the government are reducing the standard of living of older Australians, who are not in a position to go back into the paid workforce.

If you look at the way in which the government are going to do it—the way in which these people are no longer going to be eligible—it is important to see how tricky and mean the redefinition of taxable income is for the purpose of having access to the seniors health card. To get access to the Commonwealth seniors health card, income which is presently excluded from the definition will be added back in. It will include income from a superannuation stream with a tax source, which means that the fund from which the superannuation payments are made has already paid tax—and which under the reforms of the last government became tax free—and it will also add back into the income test for the card income that is sacrificed for superannuation payments. In other words, while legislation previously passed by this House exempted certain superannuation benefits which are being paid now but have already been subject to a tax regime, these benefits are going to be added back into the definition of income received for the purpose of being eligible for the Commonwealth seniors health card. Double taxation perhaps? A neat way of going around and repealing benefits that were given by a previous government? All of those questions should be asked of this government.

At the end of the day, this is a moral question. The government will strip $84 million from these people over four years—$21 million a year—to lower their standard of living while, at the same time, splashing around $42 billion of taxpayers’ money and plunging us into debt. And the government are sending $75 million of that $42 billion overseas, where it will not benefit the Australian economy at all. So, at the end of the day, it is older Australians—who have saved so that they could proudly call themselves self-funded retirees and proudly say, ‘We have provided for ourselves and we will not be a burden on the taxpayer’—who are being forced to fund the $75 million worth of $900 bonuses paid to people who no longer live in Australia, which will benefit another economy, not ours. It is an immoral decision to force older Australians to be responsible for providing that money to pay people who no longer live here. I might add that the $75 million that was paid to the overseas people did not need to be paid under the agreements that have been struck between governments as to pension reciprocity payments. These are payments that are made above and beyond that. Indeed, it is my understanding that, when we as a government made one-off payments to people who met the criteria to receive that one-off payment—that is, pensioners, part-pensioners or self-funded retirees—we did not send that money overseas.

The mechanism was already there to ensure that the payments were made to stimulate the Australian economy, not to be sloppy in the administration—or perhaps it was intentional, to say: ‘We are going to grab this money away from these older Australians in order to pay it to some others.’ So in speaking to this bill and saying that we are going to oppose this provision, I personally find the decision to attack those people who are most vulnerable—that is, older Australians, including veterans, who have worked hard to provide for themselves—one of the most immoral decisions that this government has made.

Every promise that was made before the election not to reverse the benefits given by the previous government to older Australians is being reversed in this sneaky piece of legislation. The more people who know about it the more people whose voices can be heard. Perhaps their voices can be added to the voices here to implore this government to change its mind about penalising older Australians who have saved for their retirement and lowering their standard of living when they are already seeing their standard of living reduced because of the economic crisis. To do so when there is so much money being washed around the economy like a man with no hands and to benefit people who no longer live here at the expense of those who do is an immoral stance by this government. Please listen to the words of those who are going to suffer, and reconsider the decision that you have made.

See this speech in context