Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Prime Minister for Social Inclusion) Share this | Hansard source

This actually poses a slight dilemma for us, because I think we need to understand what the consequence of this is. Certainly the government is not supporting this particular amendment. Consider the way in which the Senate will have to deal with this amendment. If we deal with it now, the bill, as amended, will then have to go back to the House of Representatives and then it will have to come back to the Senate so we can ensure that we support those people whom we are all furiously supporting by correcting the issue as to the fringe benefits tax, and that issue will need to be resolved before the Senate rises. So I want you to understand the broader implication of dealing with your opposition amendments in this way.

I come to the issue that Senator Bernardi has raised in amendment (2) in relation to his concerns as to the seniors card. Senator Bernardi has suggested that this is a de facto means test. I want to go to that issue quite specifically, first of all, and then go to the issue of the numbers. This is not a means-testing regime; this is a compliance regime. It affects all new Commonwealth seniors health card claimants and existing Commonwealth seniors health card holders. The purpose of this is that from July 2008 the Commonwealth seniors health card will be included in data-matching regimes with state and territory governments’ registers of births, deaths and marriages, for death notification, and with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, to identify overseas absences longer than 13 weeks. Centrelink will review the adjusted taxable income of and collect the tax file numbers for all cardholders over the six-month period, commencing September 2008. The majority of reviews are expected to be conducted in February 2009, but the legislation is actually required to enable the collection of the tax file numbers. From September 2008 all new claimants for the Commonwealth seniors health card will be required to provide a tax file number as part of the claims process and that will allow Centrelink to data match by tax file number with the Australian Taxation Office as required. From July 2009 Centrelink will commence data-matching customers with the Australian Taxation Office to check taxable incomes on an ad hoc basis. From July 2009 Centrelink and FaHCSIA will develop a profiling tool for Commonwealth seniors health card holders that will target reviews for cardholders who have used taxable income that was assessed more than five years in the past and for those Commonwealth seniors health card holders and their partners, if applicable, whose adjusted taxable income is close to the relevant income limits.

Senator Bernardi has made a point about the number of people who are affected. I need to correct his additions. It is estimated that around 13, 000 Commonwealth seniors health card holders will lose their eligibility in 2008-09 and that will increase to 14,000 in 2009-10, not by another 14,000. So a total of 14,000, not a total of 27, 000, are expected to be affected by this measure.

The system is intended to make it fair for everyone, and no-one who is eligible for the card will lose the card as a result of this amendment. Only those people who are ineligible for the card, because their income is too high, will have their card withdrawn. The amendment will not take the card away from anyone who is eligible and whose income is below the income limits of $50,000 for singles and $80,000 for couples. It ensures equity in that only those eligible retain the use of the card and remain eligible for the associated benefits, including the seniors concession allowance and the telephone allowance.

As I said earlier, the previous government also conducted a data-matching exercise between the Australian Taxation Office and Centrelink on card eligibility in 2006. That was actually a cleansing of the database. It identified around 11 per cent of cardholders with income above the qualifying income limits and subsequently cancelled their cards. This is the same approach. There is nothing sinister in what is being proposed in the legislation. It really is clearing the decks, ensuring that those who are eligible for and entitled to the card will be able to retain it and those who are ineligible for the card, because their income is too high, will have their card withdrawn. I hope that clarifies the situation as to the two issues, the number of those people who will be affected and the process by which it will actually occur.