Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Commonwealth seniors health card is a very vital piece of government entitlement that is enjoyed by self-funded retirees around the country. But many would realise that that has not been indexed since 2001. It was a creature of the 1990s and it appropriately recognised that self-funded retirees who have planned for the future and planned for their retirement still deserve some consideration from government in accessing the wonderful PBS, the safety net and, where negotiated with their doctor, bulk-billing services. That is precisely what many seniors value above all from government.

Those thresholds have not changed since 2001. We know that individuals hitting the $50,000-income mark and couples hitting the $80,000-income mark, which have not moved, have been caught by bracket creep and are no longer eligible for those cards. Haven't the opposition really exposed themselves today for what they have been over the last six years in government? The Labor Party do not regard self-funded retirees as the core of this nation who have planned all their lives to be self-sufficient. Instead, the Labor Party have exposed their view that this group are enemies of the state and, for earning what I think is a very moderate sum of money of between $50,000 and $80,000, this group are earning way too much money to be deserving of a Commonwealth seniors health card. The Labor Party are just too pernickety and too tight to even consider allowing a Commonwealth seniors health card to these great Australians.

I say thank you to them. I think that most Australians would take a similar view that for someone earning around $50,000 it is thoroughly reasonable that there is some help at times when they need health care and are facing a large out-of-pocket cost and that they have access to a safety net. This is not saying that people should get a free ride; it is saying that they should have access to a safety net when health expenses are really high in one particular year. I think we should be proud that we have a system that offers a safety net. I have no problem with a couple who are seniors of retirement age, over the age of 65, having access to a safety net. I think to deny those families access to a safety net puts the Labor Party in a very bad light.

But it really took until today to hear the shadow minister's aggressive and condescending attitude to these Australians—millions of them—who do not collect a pension. Instead they do their best with their earnings that they have accrued over their lifetimes. They are often living on very small superannuation accounts. But I note that they are adjusted, taxable income. When you consider both forms of income, net losses through investments, foreign sources of income that have not been taxed overseas, other forms of superannuation that have been exempted since 2007 and adjusted income, people with incomes between $50,000 and $80,000 if they are single or a couple should be eligible. And that should move with inflation.

This is not a big ask. Surely after seven or eight years of indexation since 2001 it is right that we go back to this important cohort and say, 'The least you deserve is that your eligibility keeps up with inflation.' We have not gone to the Labor Party asking for any great favours. We have just asked for this group to be respected with the CPI indexation that we assign and provide and that I think most groups would demand—and that is simple indexation to keep up with the cost of living.

I do not think this is a terribly large decision for most people who are not directly involved; but for the 30,000 Australians who were to lose those cards over the next four years this would have been a major hit to their budget. I say again that they are people who have planned ahead for their finances and predominantly look after themselves. They pay full tote everywhere they go. To say to them they cannot even access the Medicare safety net is disappointing and even more so to deny them this card if they have a fluctuation in their income—one year here or there—purely due to nothing other than CPI correction.

I think it is a very small piece of generosity. It is a great shame that something as modest as this for people who look after themselves and have done so all their lives will be denied by the Labor Party. Of all the things we have discussed in this chamber over the last six months, I would have thought they could have waved this one through. They could have just looked self-funded retirees in the eye. The member the Ryan would have a similar view. We have thousands of these people who do it tough and do not have an automatic government wage coming into their account every fortnight. They often have households where there are significant rent and interest payments that they must meet. To deny them access to a safety net is something that I would be a little bit embarrassed about if I were a member of the Labor Party. I would be hoping that this debate would terminate quickly and that we would move on because it is a shabby position to take.

What has driven that decision? The first one could be that this is a Labor Party that is devoid of any ideas or even a willingness to articulate them, so it is just going to negate everything in this chamber. That debases the processes of parliament. The second and more concerning one is that we have a Labor Party that is so tied up with its union mates and so tied up in professing that they care for the poor—when they did very little for them in government—that they deny these things to such an important group. These self-funded retirees are the same group of people who say, 'No, we will not lead two decades of our lives on the government purse, if we can avoid it. We are going to try and do it alone. We are going to try and set up our superannuation so that we are independent. We would like to do a little bit of travel here and there with our savings.'

Another important development is that now instead of having these concessions cut off after a handful of weeks, our self-funded retirees can go overseas for a bit longer without losing access to their bulk-billing doctor, a PBS concessional arrangement of $6.80 or, finally, being able to access the safety net in a year where there are precipitous health cost.

I have made my point. I say to self-funded retirees out there: it is true the coalition will look after you at every turn. Never was such a light shone upon the Labor Party's negative approach to self-funded retirees and never was it so exposed as it has been in this very, very modest and humble debate about a relatively small amount of money that looks after 30,000 Australians. Every one of them listening today will now know where Labor stands on this issue.

See this speech in context