Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I will keep my statement short and to the point. I am opposed to the Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Commonwealth Seniors Health Card) Bill 2009 on a number of grounds. Primarily, it will reduce accessibility for some senior Australians, reversing the generosity shown by the previous government. By changing the income test and counting in more income, you are going to disqualify people who had not previously been affected. In those terms, it is a retrograde piece of legislation; it is going backwards and it is not worthy of my support.

This bill represents a roll-back as far as entitlements go and it is yet another snub to self-funded retirees. To rub even more salt into the wound, this meanness is being introduced at a time when the government has written itself an open cheque for up to $200 billion in foreign borrowings, some of which will no doubt be spent on pet projects. What is this government going to say to those affected self-funded retirees in Gilmore if this bill is passed? ‘No, you’re not entitled because you’ve saved too much over the years and now we think you’re too rich’? Remember that the Commonwealth seniors health card was originally designed to meet the needs of people who may have been asset rich but income poor—people like farmers or pensioners whose blocks of land have been inflated by the Valuer General, like some of my elderly constituents who built their homes on a waterfront 40 or 50 years ago. Without their owners having doing anything, these blocks are now worth over a million dollars, and they are occupied by older residents on a pension or self-funded retirees living on the poverty line, many of whom have been forced out of their homes because they cannot afford to pay the astronomical rates and land taxes imposed by the state government. And yet one wonders if it is only a matter of time before these homes are also included in the asset test.

This legislation will definitely push some people into poverty because they will be compelled to pay for health and medical costs that were previously, under our government, subsidised. If this bill passes the House, this will no longer be the case for some of them. I am a tad confused at the apparent conflict in direction this government are taking. Here they are tightening up benefits to senior Australians—and they want to give them less—yet, at the same time, they are splashing around bucketloads of money for people to spend in the shops every quarter. They are spending $28 million to advertise the economic stimulus package, blowing $13 million on GroceryWatch—which achieved nothing—not to mention the petrol commission or Fuelwatch. And the list goes on.

This government is driving up national debt to unheard of levels, knowing that the current members of government will not be around to clean up the mess—but their children certainly will. This government is prepared to play around willy-nilly with taxpayers’ money yet can still talk about looking after an ageing Australia, uttering reassurances as to how valued our older people are. As I said, this is a retrograde step, yet, in the budget papers, how did the government describe it? Let me quote the words:

This measure will increase fairness …

That is a very subjective view. I wonder if the self-funded retirees in Gilmore who stand to lose out on this will share the sentiment.

Since July 2007, persons aged 60 or more with income from private taxed superannuation sources have had their superannuation income treated as being tax free. In so many ways, the advances made by the previous government are gradually being eroded, and this is yet another example—give with one hand and take with the other. Arguing as to what should constitute income misses the point. The real issue is that this government is actually taking something away that has been given or, in most cases, earned over many years to gain self-sufficiency in later life.

The disposable income of this category of affected person will be reduced significantly and dramatically for those individuals. More pressure will be placed on a health system that is already struggling as it is. And the quality of life for some will be lowered. It is also reasonable to assume that the life expectancy of some people will be compromised as they are forced to introduce lifestyle economies to cope with the change.

It was only a few short weeks ago that the government were critical of the coalition’s opposition to the promised spending splurge contained in the nation-building bill. We were lambasted for daring to question the motives of the government and why they needed to splash so much money around in the way they did, especially when it seems that the December splash did not produce the results prophesied. The December quarter actually went into negative growth, but maybe the government suspected much earlier that that might be the result and deliberately pumped half the surplus into a pre-Christmas splurge. Now, when we are saying, ‘Don’t cut benefits,’ the government are equally critical. That is two bob each way—and, as I said before, mixed messages.

The fact is that if you are not on an age pension you rely on an independent income as a retiree. If your adjusted taxable income is less than $50,000 for a single or $80,000 for partners, strap in! For seniors who lose the CSHC the effects are dire. Under the PBS, CSHC holders pay $5.30 per script. After losing it, they will pay $32.90. With the seniors health card, a senior reaches the safety net threshold when he or she has paid a total of $318 for scripts. Prescriptions after that are free. Without a Commonwealth health card, the safety net threshold rises to $1,264.90, after which a fee of $5.30 per script still applies. With the Commonwealth seniors health card, a senior is eligible to receive an annual allowance of $500 to assist with payment for essential services, for which pensioners are granted concessions. But, at July 2009, many seniors will lose their entitlement.

Commonwealth seniors health card holders will receive a lump sum payment of $500 in the 2008-09 year. If they lose their card because of eligibility changes, they will not participate in any further bonus payments. Commonwealth seniors health card holders qualify for a telephone allowance of $34.60 paid every three months to qualified income support recipients or Commonwealth seniors health card holders. The card allows holders to benefit from a range of concessions granted at the discretion of providers. These include medical bulk-billing and household, transport, education, recreation and entertainment facilities. They will be greatly missed by persons who will now become ineligible for the card.

I will certainly be telling the self-funded retirees in Gilmore how little this government thinks of them. Is this intended to be their reward for working hard all those years so they could be as independent as possible? It is not a good message. I am bound to remind my constituency that this intervention was not mentioned in Labor’s election campaign, so the government certainly cannot morally claim that it has been handed a mandate to reduce benefits to thousands of people.

These are tough times, and what this government is doing is making things even tougher for thousands of people who are not in any position to make a career change. This is just another nail in the coffin for self-funded retirees, who have been passed over time and time again by this government. Where will it stop? I am grateful for one thing, and that is that our veterans will be largely spared from this bill, at least for the time being—but who knows what tomorrow will bring with this government? It is a fact that, as our population ages, there will be more demands placed on health services, which are already stretched to the limit. Is it fair, therefore, to penalise the very people who tried so hard to look after themselves and may well now need the support of the government in their autumn years?

The savings from this intervention are projected to be in the order of just over $20 million a year, over four years. Twenty million dollars is all that will be saved, at the expense of some older Australians who should be rewarded for their efforts, not punished. Contrast that with the $200 billion blank cheque that Labor has written for itself, and tell the constituents of Gilmore how this bill is an act of compassion and understanding. How can you, Prime Minister, and your government now stand in the House and say we need to save $20 million a year and, in the same breath, blow a budget surplus of $20 billion plus and then even more again this month? What credit are we spending in March—$42 billion? So this government is going to take this money from a few thousand aged citizens and give it to someone who is employed, to help subsidise, perhaps, the purchase of new televisions, the money for which will most likely end up in a foreign country.

This intervention is virtually tax by stealth. It is the action of a mean-spirited, sneaky government. In these uncertain economic times, we need to be reassuring and motivating people—the Prime Minister has said as much on many occasions—certainly not frightening them and certainly not creating a precedent for another foray into more tax collections in the future, which this bill will do. Perhaps this government will now consider setting aside some of these savings to fund a happiness workshop for the likely victims of this bill, a workshop similar to that which the bureaucrats of the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations attended at a cost of $642,000 to the taxpayer. What is the government’s response to all this for Gilmore’s self-funded retirees? The answer is: ‘Go visit Centrelink.’

See this speech in context