Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I, too, speak on the Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Commonwealth Seniors Health Card) Bill 2009 in absolute disgust. Australia is being shaken by the greatest global economic crisis in years, and the vulnerable in our society are suffering. Many older Australians have seen the devastation of the value of the investments intended to see them through retirement. Some have been refused access to money which had supposedly been safely deposited with financial institutions but was then subject to the government’s muddled bank guarantee scheme. Living costs remain high. These people are hurting. And what does the government do? Does it express sympathy or extend a helping hand? No. Does it implement measures to ease the pain felt by this deserving section of the community? No. Does it even try to maintain the services which were already in place when it took office? No. It just kicks the elderly in the teeth.

The government is telling retired Australians, who planned ahead on the basis of promises made to them while they were building the country that we all enjoy today, that they do not deserve the benefits of our society. The members opposite are telling 22,000 Australians, whose hard work has placed them just above the breadline, that they should be punished—punished for being naive enough to trust that promises would be kept under a Labor government.

These are not wealthy people by any measure. They just set aside enough so they would not have to rely on the pension alone. They are people who struggle in the current environment and get by with the aid of the Commonwealth seniors health card. Until now, superannuation payments have been excluded when assessing eligibility for the card, which carries a wide range of benefits. But this bill will take that income into account as well, and any single retiree getting more than $50,000 per annum or couples receiving more than $80,000 per annum will be denied the card. How many members of this House could get by on those income levels or less, even without the added cost burdens which come with age, particularly the expense of medication?

We all recall the Prime Minister’s admission last year that he could not survive on the aged pension—an embarrassing admission which was parroted by several of his offsiders on the benches opposite. But, of course, the Prime Minister speaks from a position of comfort, safe in the knowledge that his retirement will be easily covered by the tens of millions of dollars his family has accrued as a direct result of Howard government policies. The Prime Minister said that the pension—which is around $560 per fortnight for a single person—was ‘almost impossible’ to live on. And his Treasurer, foreshadowing an increase in the pension in the next federal budget, said, ‘The single rate pension is totally inadequate.’ The question, of course, is how they expect pensioners to survive when they themselves admit they could not get by on such a pittance.

Many of those who would be affected by this bill made their retirement plans on the basis of Howard government policy—like the Prime Minister, albeit without his vast wealth. The previous government showed them respect and care. The Prime Minister shows them only contempt. In the 2007 election campaign he promised to take care of the elderly. And this is how he is taking care of them! The plan to snatch seniors’ health cards from 22,000 retirees would save, perhaps, $40 million in the first year of its implementation. That is about 0.1 per cent of the Prime Minister’s latest spending spree in which he has emptied Australia’s coffers—and gone beyond that, to plunge the nation into grave debt—to buy some fleeting affection from the public. The members opposite took government with an impressive surplus, the legacy of the Howard government, but now the cupboard is bare. And it seems the elderly have been targeted to pay the price for this government’s bungling. Forty million dollars—that is what will be gained by causing misery and distress to thousands of older Australians who did nothing more than work hard and plan for their future. The government obviously thinks this is a price worth paying; I do not.

More than 3,000 retirees in my electorate of Tangney alone signed letters last year registering their disgust at the government’s treatment of them, particularly in the bill we are debating today. More than 200 retirees crammed into a local hall to express their rage at what they see as abuse by a government which does not care, a government which is intent on punishing seniors for reasons known only to itself. The plan to cut back on entitlements for the health care card was hatched long ago. It was buried in the last federal budget and, not surprisingly, it did not appear in any of the ‘highlights’ circulated by the government. It was brought to my attention by two elderly constituents—a couple who had worked hard and scrimped and saved throughout their lives so that they could be secure in their retirement. They are among those whose future will be determined by the outcome of this debate. The plan had been pointed out to them by a sharp-eyed accountant. This couple found that the inclusion of their superannuation income would push them over the threshold and mean the withdrawal of their health care cards. The lost pharmaceutical benefits alone would cost this couple some $300 per week—a heavy burden for anyone and a back-breaking burden for those already struggling to get by.

Most of those older constituents who signed letters and rallied in my electorate against their treatment by the government are self-funded retirees, who are the prime target of the bill before us today. Many of them have since seen access to their funds blocked by the government’s bungled bank guarantee. They are already facing dire straits, and the withdrawal of their health cards would be a massive blow. This move would see the cost of their prescribed medications soar from $5 per script to $31.30. Remember that many of these people require multiple scripts every week to deal with the health problems that beset some older citizens.

The card also includes a safety net, which cuts in when $290 has been spent on prescriptions in one year, with any further medicines being provided free for that period. This bill would see that cut-off rise to $1,141.80 in one year, after which a fee of $5 per script would still apply. The card provides other benefits not necessarily related to health but on which many older Australians are dependent. These include the seniors concession allowance, which provides cardholders with $500 per annum to help pay for basic services for which retirees are not given concessional rates, including energy, rates and motor vehicle registration fees. Then there is the seniors bonus payment, under which cardholders are due to get a $500 lump sum payment in 2008-09. If they lose their card there will be no more bonus payments. They also get a telephone allowance of $88 per annum and a wide range of other concessions—on services such as transport, recreation and entertainment—extended by state, territory and local governments as well as private providers.

Demand for these benefits is set to dramatically increase, with the number of Australians aged 85 and over to increase from 400,000 today to 1.6 million by 2047. In 2055, forecasts say, there will be 78,000 Australians aged over 100, compared to 2,860 today. Clearly the demand for medication by the aged will rapidly expand. But what will they do if they cannot afford to pay because of this government’s policies? This is a very real scenario faced by 22,000 people who would be affected by this bill right now. There is no other safety net. This is the safety net, and members opposite would like to take it away. The choice for some could come down to whether to take medication or to eat, because this government is not going to allow them do both. Obviously the Commonwealth seniors health card is of tremendous benefit to those who hold it, with some reports suggesting it saves some cardholders about $10,000 per annum. If, like the Prime Minister, you have millions of dollars it is obviously no big deal, but for those struggling to get by, and whose income makes them targets of this bill, $10,000 could be the difference between surviving and falling by the wayside. This is especially true when you consider that many self-funded retirees—assuming that they are able to access the funds they set aside for their older years—are particularly exposed to diminishing values on the stock market. In short, the withdrawal of the card would be devastating to many.

Some say this bill is the thin end of the wedge and that it is the first step in hitting the elderly to make up for the disastrous losses incurred by the government in recent months. But I do not say that, because the writing has been on the wall for some time. This is just another example, and we should not be surprised. This bill is in keeping with the contempt the government have shown for older Australian since they took office—and it appears that they are set to stay on this track, with news reports suggesting there are plans to tighten the income requirements for receiving the age pension. The reports say the effect of these measures in slashing the number of people entitled to a pension will allow payments for the few remaining pensioners to be significantly increased. Presumably the Prime Minister’s objective is to then be able to boast that the pension has reached a reasonable level, regardless of the fact that it is available to a relative few because others have been excluded from receiving the benefit. Other reports have suggested that the government may change the rates at which asset tests are tapered, which would have the effect of reducing the incentive to save for retirement. They say there may be an increase in income test taper rates, which would be a disincentive for people to earn additional money.

Many of today’s older Australian pensioners planned their retirement in the days before universal compulsory superannuation, when they were assured that a lifetime of paying tax would be rewarded with state benefits in their later years. If the government has its way, we as a nation will be defaulting on this promise. These reported planned changes are in keeping with government tactics of giving with one hand and taking away with the other—and taking far more than was given at that. The coalition supports an increase in the age pension and last year tried to raise it by $30 a week, but the government voted against it. That, you will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, was at the time when the Prime Minister cried crocodile tears of sympathy for pensioners and said he knew they were doing it hard, while his family were sitting on piles of cash they had built up because of Howard government policies.

The members opposite should be hanging their heads in shame over their treatment of seniors. After their disgusting refusal to increase the age pension, embarrassed by their own insensitivity and squirming for a response to the emerging financial crisis, they finally caved in to our urging and made some payments available to the elderly late last year, and that was it. The government have done nothing more to help seniors, whose standard of living has steadily declined throughout their term in office. Those one-off payments were the giving part of the equation. The bill before us today is the element of taking.

With the healthy surplus which the government inherited on taking office now obliterated, we can expect more of the same. How will older Australians cope with a government which is spiteful enough to take away the very concessions which allow them to survive? How will we all cope in our old age? A raft of reports late last year painted a grim picture of life for the elderly under the current government. The OECD said that Australia had the fourth highest poverty rate for over-65s among the world’s developed economies, adding that for singles aged over 65—get this—Australia had the highest relative income poverty rate in the grouping. If there was any doubt about the likely impact of withdrawing these health cards from so many, we can look to a very disturbing report which said some older Australians were not taking potentially life-saving drugs because of financial concerns. How much worse will things get if this government has its way with this bill?

The aged-care system is another shambles under this government—and, if the system cannot meet demand for aged care today, how will it cope with the rapid ageing of Australia’s population? Many baby boomers have not yet even retired. Aged-care providers are turning down offers of federal government subsidies and refusing to build new places because it is simply not viable to do so. Continuing the government record of neglect of older Australians is the recent move to strip away pensions from the former wives of veterans. Under this despicable cash grab, women who have separated from their veteran husbands will lose their pensions. This is after spending their lives in support of men who risked everything for their country in combat zones around the world. Rather than receiving an entitlement in recognition of service to this nation, they will be forced to seek payments from Centrelink, receiving either unemployment benefits or the age pension.

In his 2007 election campaign, the Prime Minister pledged to ease life for senior citizens, but after taking office, instead of taking real steps to improve the lot of older Australians, he ordered a review into measures to ‘strengthen the financial security of seniors, carers and people with disability’. This has become typical behaviour for the government: ordering reviews and inquiries rather than effecting real change. It is a strategy of giving the appearance of motion while standing still. It is all about style and not about substance. The review to improve conditions for the elderly, carers and the disabled—the Harmer review—made its final report to the government last month, but it has not been released and no key findings have been announced. So, while promising to improve things for the elderly, the government’s only changes have been to the detriment of older Australians.

I challenge the members opposite to guarantee that no older Australians will suffer disadvantage as a result of changes implemented by their government—if, that is, they can bring themselves to make changes without ordering yet another review. Why won’t the Prime Minister give such a guarantee if his professed sympathy for the aged is genuine? Why won’t any of the relevant ministers give such a guarantee? I think we all know the answer.

As we are approaching Anzac Day, I would like to urge the members opposite to take a close look at those marching in this year’s parades. What will they see? They will see mostly older men and women who, regardless of damage suffered by their bodies caused by lives of hard graft and sacrifice and ultimately the ravages of age, carry themselves with humility, dignity and pride—and so they should. Is it too much to ask that they also be treated with dignity and pride? It is hard to find the words to convey the disgust many of us feel at the government’s treatment of older Australians. I trust the members opposite sleep well at night knowing they are sticking the knife into these people to cover their own ineptitude. I do not, because I feel real shame that this House is even debating measures which are intended to harm the welfare of these people who are held in such high regard by well-minded Australians. The members opposite would do well to pay attention to those marching on Anzac Day. Perhaps they too could learn a little about humility and honour. They certainly need to.

See this speech in context