Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to follow the member for Lyons because it was interesting to hear his contribution to this debate, a contribution that I found quite phenomenal when he talked about this particular piece of legislation. The legislation leads to the indexation of thresholds. That will occur annually and is aimed to start on 20 September this year. That indexation is going to be based on the consumer price index. The member for Lyons was very keen to celebrate this legislation and talked about how this will extend benefits to seniors who are now ineligible. He talked about the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. He talked about 'bulk-billing by GPs'—those were the words he used. I felt that it was really important that I raise that issue in connection with this debate, coming off the words that he used.

This budget has been debated and discussed in this House, throughout every media outlet in Australia and certainly in my electorate. In this budget there is a move to end bulk-billing and to force those people going to visit a doctor to pay a GP tax. On the one hand, we have the member for Lyons celebrating the fact that 1,020 seniors in his electorate will be eligible to go and see bulk-billing GPs with their card; on the other hand, he stands up in this parliament and supports a GP tax and the fact that the Abbott government in this place is seeking to end bulk-billing as we know it today and force people to pay co-payments. Those seniors that he believes will be able to access bulk-billing will be accessing a second-class form of bulk-billing. That is what he is arguing for.

The other issue he touched on was the PBS. It was only last night that we passed legislation in this House to increase co-payments paid by people when they have their prescriptions filled, be they concessional or be they for people who pay the full amount for their prescriptions. I found that contribution from the member for Lyons somewhat convoluted and it showed a lack of understanding of a number of issues surrounding this.

I have to pick up on one other thing that he said when he talked about electricity. He talked about electricity prices going down. I would like to share with the House news from the electorate of Shortland. News from the electorate of Shortland comes in the form of the fact that EnergyAustralia, who is my provider, and AGL, who is the provider for many other people in the area, sent letters to all their customers advising them that electricity prices would be going up from 1 July. Yet we have members on the other side of this House saying that prices are going down. The state member for the electorate of Swansea had egg on his face because he sent a newsletter out to the whole of the electorate telling them that the price of electricity was going down on the same day that the provider of electricity in that area sent a letter to customers saying that in actual fact it was increasing.

There is so much misinformation being put out into the community by those on the other side of this House. It is incredible that they are out there duping people in the way that they are. To the member for Lyons, with his 1,020 seniors who will become eligible for this benefit, I say that 20,400 pensioners are going to have their pension indexation rate changed after legislation is passed through this parliament and are going to be receiving less money each fortnight. I say to him, 'Go and explain to pensioners why it is more important to pay money to seniors who have a very high income in excess of $50,000 and why it is more important for them to get a card than it is for pensions to be indexed properly.'

It absolutely horrifies me that members on the other side of this House have so little concern for the people who they represent that they smugly come into this House day after day to support a tax on the very livelihood of those people that they are in this parliament to ensure are represented effectively. At the end of the day, I have news for members on the other side of this House: they are going to reap a reward for what they have done to the people of Australia. The people of Australia are disgusted with this government. The people of Australia do not want a GP tax or the pension indexation rate changed. The people of Australia look to the government to deliver on the promises that they made before the election. Their promises were not only to remove the carbon tax but also that there was a unity ticket on education, there would be no cuts to education and there would be no cuts to health. Each and every day we see this shambolic government trying to do backroom deals to get through the worst measures that any government could possibly seek to perpetrate on the Australian people.

I do not think my electorate office is any different to the electorate offices of those members on the other side of this parliament. I suspect that members on the other side of this parliament are receiving the same phone calls from their constituents that I am receiving from my constituents. They are phone calls saying that this government is cruel, heartless, mean and attacking them in each and every way.

A few weeks ago, I held a Medicare rally in the Shortland electorate. I was joined by my colleagues the member for Newcastle and the member for Charlton. On the day, we had over 500 people turn out. People marched from the Medicare office which was opened when we were in government and closed when the Howard government was in government. So we gave back what the Howard government took. We give back what the Liberals take. We walked from that office down to the foreshore of Lake Macquarie. At that rally the question was asked: 'How many people are attending their first rally?' Eighty per cent of the people who were at that rally put up their hand. Eighty per cent of them had never been to a rally before. That is the level of anger this government has caused in my community.

A week later, I was delivering some flowers to a couple who were celebrating their 70th anniversary. The husband was 89 years old and his wife was 88 years old. They were both pensioners. Both are going to have their pension indexation changed and both are going to lose $4,000 a year under this government's mean-spirited budget. So both of them—an 88-year-old and an 89-year-old—were involved in that Medicare rally. But they were not the oldest. There was a 93-year-old woman there, as well as an 83-year-old man with an 89-year-old woman.

This legislation delivers on one of the government's pre-election promises. It delivers to a small number of people in the community. It delivers to just over 20,000 people whilst the other attacks included in this budget—the cuts to health, the cuts to hospitals, the cuts to pensions, the GP tax, the increased co-payment on pharmaceutical benefits—affect each and every person in Australia. They will impact on the cost of living and the lifestyle of many Australians.

In addition to that, this government is giving with one hand by extending the Seniors Health Card but taking away with the other. Not included in this legislation is their plan to abolish the Seniors Supplement, an annual payment to people who have the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. So more people will get the card—those people on higher incomes—but seniors who are already eligible for the seniors card are going to lose their supplement. This government is taking from the people who most look to government for support. This government really does stand condemned for what it is doing in this area.

As I was saying earlier, the people of Australia will remember at the next election. The people of Australia will deliver their judgement on this government. For those members opposite representing marginal electorates, I can tell you that their verdict will come hard and it will come fast—many of you need to update your resumes. If you do not update your resume, you are going to be left sitting at home on the couch wondering what you are going to do. The Australian people did not think they were voting for an unfair government that was going to attack them each and every day in each and every way. They did not think they were voting for a government that was going to be so harsh and so mean-spirited, that was going to skew its policies so much in favour of those on high incomes at the expense of those who look to government for support—people on low or medium incomes.

This government has really shown their true colours with this legislation. They are putting forward their rolled-gold paid parental leave scheme that will pay $50,000 to millionaires whilst at the same time they are putting a tax on visits to the doctor, cutting family tax benefits and attacking pensioners in the harshest possible way. They are cutting indexation for pensioners after saying they would not change the pension. They said that, but already the legislation that is going to lead to a reduction in the income of pensioners has passed through this parliament.

This legislation will benefit some seniors. It will benefit those seniors who have higher incomes—single pensioners with incomes over $50,000, couples with a combined income of over $80,000 and couples separated by illness with a combined income of over $100,000. But, on the other hand, this government is legislating to take away the income supplement for seniors, attacking their healthcare benefits and attacking their ability to afford GP visits—attacking their quality of life and impacting on their cost of living each and every day.

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I await with interest the English translation of that contribution from the member for Shortland.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Bass will withdraw that remark. House of Representatives Practice clearly says that you are not to reflect on members in that manner. So please withdraw that unreservedly.

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw, Deputy Speaker. But can I just say that people who were listening to that contribution from the member for Shortland will feel enormously let down, because the member for Shortland talks about this measure 'benefiting senior Australians', yet she is going to vote against it. The member for Moreton talked about acknowledging our senior Australians—and he is going to vote against it. I cannot believe that—

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member for Bass willing to give way?

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would the member for Bass be able to inform the House how many seniors in his electorate will benefit from this, and how many pensioners will have their indexation—

Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Hughes will be silent.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How many pensioners in his electorate will be negatively impacted upon by the changes in indexation? I would like to add a second part to that question—

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can ask for another intervention.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All right. I will ask a second one.

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response to the member for Shortland, as at March 2014 there were 933 people in the seat of Bass receiving the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. Can I ask a reciprocal question to the member for Shortland. How many people in her electorate receive the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card?

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not in the standing orders.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Bass. You cannot ask a member a question that way. You have answered the question, now continue your speech.

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And, Deputy Speaker, I will not be accepting any further interventions from the member for Shortland, because I only have 15 minutes, and as we have just seen the member for Shortland should remember that old adage: you should never ask a question that you do not already know the answer to. The member for Shortland often comes into this chamber and waxes lyrical about a whole range of things—

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Shortland with a point of order.

Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—

Member for Hughes, this is the last time I am warning you to be quiet.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My point of order is that a person speaking cannot ask a question of a member who is not contributing to the debate.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have said that already. There is no point of order. The member for Bass has the call.

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As usual, the member for Shortland is about five minutes behind the conversation. I welcome the opportunity to speak about this bill, because this bill improves the lives of a range of Australians, with a particular focus on the self-funded retiree community. It is a community that rarely gets a lot of thanks for what it does for our country. By virtue of being either fully or partially self-funded, these retirees make an enormously valuable contribution to our country and to the budget bottom line.

Often when we speak on bills in this House, we speak of technical details and provisions and the effects the bills will have on people around the country. What I would like to do is to frame my remarks in relation to this bill as more of a thank you—a thank you to those men and women who have saved and sacrificed to the point where they are able to look after their own needs in retirement.

On a number of occasions in the last few years I have had the pleasure of addressing large groups of retirees in my home town of Launceston, some self-funded and some partially self-funded, who belong to the Association of Independent Retirees. I acknowledge in particular President Graeme Barwick of the association for inviting me to speak to large gatherings of the association, many of whom I continue to interact with. These self-funded or partially-self-funded retirees tell interesting stories of lives well lived, of enterprise and sacrifice, where they put things like private health insurance ahead of other priorities in their lives, and they put the education of their children and savings and thrift ahead of consumption and expenditure during their lives. They put it ahead of things like holidays and luxury items.

One couple I encountered, whose story I thought was particularly relevant to the debate we are having this afternoon, has run a small business for most of their adult lives. They have now stopped working, they have liquidated most of their assets, and after almost 50 years of toil and effort they have paid off their mortgage and have just over $800,000 in assets for their retirement. Just as they have been careful to save and economise during their working life, they were very careful to ensure that, after retiring, these funds would last for as long as possible. These are not sophisticated investors willing to risk their nest egg on complex financial instruments. They wanted to keep their money safe, so they looked for the best term deposit. Currently, that is earning around four per cent. On $800,000, at four per cent, they earn about $32,000 in interest on their next egg. They are not rich people, particularly when you consider that, today, the maximum basic pension for a couple, with the pension and energy supplements, is just over $33,000. These people are earning $32,000, while a couple on the maximum rate of pension for a couple, with the pension and energy supplements, is receiving just over $33,000, or about $1,000 more than this couple earn from their interest payments each year. The income of these self-funded retirees will diminish over time as they draw down on their own capital. Their income over time has the potential to be even lower. So I say thank you to this couple, who are part of a diverse range of people, most especially Australian seniors, who have done much to make this country the very best in the world. I thank them for their sacrifice, for making provision during their working lives for their retirement, and for alleviating pressure on the public purse. My hope is that this bill will provide practical support to them and others, helping them to enjoy their later years.

This bill is founded on wide consultation, reflecting the fact that the coalition is listening to and is prepared to keep listening to the views, opinions and ideas of this influential group. The aim of the measures in this bill is to continue to contribute both morally and materially to improving the general fabric of contemporary Australian society, with a particular focus, in this instance, on self-funded retirees. This laudable purpose includes three important objectives. First, to amend the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to annually index the income test thresholds for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card to movements in the Consumer Price Index. Secondly, it will align provisions in the Student Assistance Act 1973, in relation to the operation of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, with those in the Social Security Act and related legislation. Third, it will amend four related social assistance acts.

In addition, the bill moves to ensure that a further range of acts are amended, including definitions pertaining to social security law, so that they accurately reflect the machinery of government, most particularly the new Department of Social Services.

I would like to focus on what is the most important element of this bill, that which pertains to some of Australia's most deserving and all too easily forgotten seniors. I have given one example of a couple that fall into the category of self-funded retirees. The seniors health card assists selected seniors with the cost of prescription medicines and other health services. The card is targeted at self-funded retirees of age pension age who do not qualify for the age pension because of their level of income or assets. It also provides card holders with access to the seniors supplement and clean energy supplement payments.

In response to an earlier question from the member for Shortland, I informed her that, as of March this year, there were 933 people in my electorate of Bass who received the Commonwealth seniors health card. It was staggering to me that the member for Shortland did not understand how many people in her electorate were eligible for the Commonwealth seniors health card. I can tell her: in March 2014, there were 1,538 people in the electorate who were eligible for the Commonwealth seniors health card. It should be a lesson to the member for Shortland not to ask questions she does not know the answer to and, more importantly, to understand her electorate better, because this will not have escaped her electors. She stands up and asks a question of me that I know the answer to, but she herself does know the answer to the same question as it relates to her electorate.

In parallel with the seniors health card but clearly distinct and separate from it is the age pensioner concession card, which provides its holders with different and broadly more generous entitlements to those received by self-funded retirees. Future eligibility for a seniors health card requires a number of conditions to be met. They must be permanent residents in Australia; they must have attained pensionable age; and they must have an adjusted taxable income of less than $50,000 for singles, less than $80,000 combined for couples and less than $100,000 combined for couples who are separated, for example, by illness or due to respite care. Importantly, there is no assets test for the Commonwealth seniors health card.

Collectively, the conditions in the bill help it to be clear, transparent and fair. As a reward to these people for a lifetime of saving, which means that they are not reliant on the public purse, we provide services and discounts. These include things like bulk-billed GP appointments, which of course are at the discretion of the GP; a reduction in out-of-hospital medical expenses; discounted rail travel on Great Southern Rail services—the Ghan, Overland and Indian Pacific; and additional health, transport, education and recreation concessions which may be offered by state and territories, local governments and private providers to Commonwealth seniors health card holders.

An important theme addressed by this bill is whether or not to maintain the income thresholds over time by indexing them to cost-of-living changes. Most income test thresholds for social security benefits are indexed, as are the rates of payment for most income support and supplementary payments. To date, as the income test thresholds for the Commonwealth seniors health card have not yet been indexed, their real value continues to decrease over time.

The coalition made a commitment at the 2010 election to index the income thresholds for the seniors health card, stating, `Indexing these thresholds to inflation will allow recipients of the Commonwealth seniors health card who maintain their incomes in real terms to continue to be eligible to receive the seniors health card.' So we will provide Australian seniors with further peace of mind regarding their healthcare costs by indexing eligibility for the card.

As I said in my introductory remarks, Deputy Speaker, given global financial events in recent years, it should be patently clear that many self-funded retirees are in fact not wealthy; rather, they find themselves under increasing financial pressure. This is most particularly the case in the context of the recent global financial crisis, especially if retiree income was, and remains, dependent on the full recovery of offshore equity markets, or indeed any international investment class or asset. For the many so affected, the last five years or so have been rather grim. Moreover, the coalition's view remains    that, having done the right thing and actively saved for retirement, many seniors should not now—or in the future—be made to live in fear of losing their entitlement because of modest changes in their retirement income. Indexing the current income thresholds so that they do not erode in real terms will allow more self-funded retirees to access the card. Through this bill, the coalition is actively honouring both the letter and the spirit of its election commitment to Australian seniors.

This bill supports an improvement in the lives of many Australian senior citizens and does so in a way which is intended to be fair, clear and consistent. Furthermore, the government is being as generous as it can be at this time, given the wider national need for fiscal restoration and recovery made so essential by the dereliction of duty of our Labor predecessors.

Contrary to some vocal and mischievous commentators, the government has both a heart and a strong social conscience. This is matched by a strong desire to help, assist and support all seniors—both pensioners and self-funded retirees alike. Where the latter are concerned, it is true that some have been financially fortunate through both circumstance and opportunity. But, equally, many more self-funded retirees have made their twilight years comfortable by dint of sheer hard work, and we want to help them.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Seniors Health Card and Other Measures) Bill 2014. Australians finally realised the true worth of the Prime Minister's promises on budget night. This legislation must be seen in the context of budget measures relating to Commonwealth seniors health card holders and pensioners and the impact of those measures in relation to what they can receive, what they can spend their money on, their health, their cost-of-living pressures, how they spend money on their education and how they spend money on other aspects of their household needs. The Prime Minister promised no cuts to education, no new taxes and no increased taxes

He said it was an absolute principle of democracy that governments should not, and must not, say one thing before an election and do the opposite afterwards. I am going to talk about the coalition's policies—it is unusual for a Labor MP to refer to the coalition's election policy in this area. I am also going to talk about what Liberal premiers and ministers say about the government's policy and how it affects Commonwealth seniors health care card holders, and pensioners as well, in the context of this piece of legislation.

We know that Commonwealth seniors health care card holders will be paying the $7 GP tax when they visit their doctor. They will pay an extra $7 each time they get a blood test, each time they get an X-ray and for each ultrasound the GP orders. That tax will compound and cascade on each visit to the doctor, and that will make them think twice before they visit the doctor. It will be a tax which will give older Australians pause before seeking their GP's advice about any nagging health concerns they have.

Last night we saw the government pass a bill which delivers a 13 per cent increase in the PBS co-payment from January 2015. This is on top of a proposed increase in the petrol tax. Families will be paying more to take their kids to netball and to school. The sheer extent of the government's broken promises, particularly in relation to pensioners and Commonwealth seniors health care card holders, is quite immense. There is a broken promise in almost every portfolio. This will reach into every aspect of Australians' lives and impact on the most vulnerable, who will be the hardest hit.

This particular legislation deals with those people who have the Commonwealth seniors health care card. The CSHC assists seniors with the cost of prescription medicines and other health services. The card is targeted at those people who, by virtue of their income or their assets, do not qualify for a pension and therefore do not get the pension concession card. The current qualifications for a single person are that they must have an adjusted taxable income of less than $50,000 a year and, for a couple, they must have a combined income of $80,000 or $100,000 combined for couples separated by illness, respite care or prison. There is also an extra amount if they have dependants on top of that threshold figure—a top figure of $639.60 per year added to an allowable income amount in the context of each dependent child.

There is no asset test in relation to the CSHC, so it is an option and an assistance to older Australians which will help them with their cost-of-living pressures. State governments and councils provide assistance, rebates and concessions in relation to a whole range of things older Australians need for their daily living—such as electricity, car registration, transport, public transport, travel et cetera. So it is a significant benefit to someone if they qualify for the CSHC. I am sure there are federal members all around this chamber who deal with people every day concerning this issue. Certainly, at the many mobile offices I conduct in my electorate, eligibility issues are raised on a regular basis.

The Commonwealth seniors health care card was the subject of coalition policy before the election, and they had something to say about it. Do you remember that fabulously awkward photo on the front of that Real solutions booklet which the now Prime Minister hugged so closely to his chest at nearly every photo opportunity? I am sure it was pretty tattered and torn by the end of the campaign. The photo shows the coalition brains trust looking at a long table, gazing off to the left—it is probably the only time they ever gazed to the left on anything. The Prime Minister clutched that photo to his chest on just about every occasion. Sitting there is a glum-looking now Treasurer, now foreign minister and minister for trade. Of course there was the member for Wentworth as well. They thought he was a bit popular, so they stuck him on the front cover. This was a policy they took to the last election, stating that a coalition government would index the income threshold for a Commonwealth seniors health care card holder to CPI. So they are proposing to do that much, and in itself it is not a bad idea.

There are other policy priorities which we think are more important, particularly for those who are poorer and more vulnerable, disabled or sick, or from an Indigenous background. In and of itself, the idea of changing the threshold is not a bad idea, but the coalition policy describes the benefits self-funded retirees may enjoy through access to the CSHC. The policy talks about indexation and goes on about the fact it will mean there will be greater eligibility for purchasing PBS prescriptions at a concessional rate—and I might have a bit more to say about that in this speech; eligibility for PBS prescriptions generally without charge for the remainder of the year once that safety net is reached; and eligibility for discounts on rates, water, sewerage, electricity, car registration, gas bills, public transport and the annual senior supplement, which I am sure those opposite do not really want to talk about now.

Let's talk about the first one. The coalition policy stated that CSHC holders receive medicines listed on the PBS at the concessional rate. However, we learnt in the budget is that this government will increase the cost of PBS medicines by 13 per cent over inflation from 1 January 2015—another 80c to the cost of prescriptions for a holder of a CSHC. There is no certainty the coalition will not raise that in the future, and it will certainly add up over time. We will see what their attitude will be. I am sure that none of the candidates who were successful, or even unsuccessful, for the coalition parties in the last election campaigned that they would be increasing the cost of prescription medicine by 13 per cent to their constituents. I am sure they did not go around many debates and say they were going to do that. The Real Solutions booklet is certainly silent on that.

The coalition's policy on the safety net at the last election said that CSHC holders 'can access Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme prescriptions, generally without charge, for the remainder of the calendar year after reaching the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Safety Net.' That is correct, too. However, we learnt in the budget that the government is proposing to increase the PBS safety net threshold for general and concessional patients. I debated my opponent I think half a dozen times during the campaign at various events, and I do not recall her ever saying that that was in their policy and certainly I do not recall anyone ever talking about that before the budget. The consequence of all of that is that for general patients the PBS safety net threshold will increase by 10 per cent over and above the CPI increase for each year for four years from 2015 to 2018. By 2018, general patients will be paying $2,287.90 each year, $725 more than they would have under a Labor government—and $725 is a lot of money. That is before they reach the safety net. For concessional patients such as holders of the cards we are talking about, the PBS safety net will be increased by two prescriptions each year—each year—between 2015 and 2018. By 2018, CSHC holders will need to pay for 68 prescriptions before reaching the safety net. This is an out-of-pocket expense of $114 more than if Labor had won the election. I am sure that none of the coalition candidates, successful or otherwise, ever said that.

The coalition's policy also stated that CSHC holders were entitled to 'bulk-billed general practitioner appointments, at the discretion of the doctor.' That is true as well—except that the coalition government wants to force CSHC holders and all other Australians to pay a $7 tax every time they visit a GP—and an extra $7 every time they have a blood test or an X-ray or an ultrasound which the GP orders. Another broken promise and, again, no candidates or elected members ever talked about that. The coalition policy also talked about access to senior concessions. It mentioned the fact that holders of these cards will be entitled to 'concessions offered by State, Territory and Local Governments,' and these concessions are offered pursuant to a National Partnership Agreement on Certain Concessions for Pensioner Concession Card and Seniors Card Holders.' They talked about the fact that they would get access to that. But on budget night we learnt that this government is unilaterally terminating the agreement, and is doing so from 1 July 2014—slashing $1.3 billion in Commonwealth assistance to the states and territories to provide seniors, including CSHC cardholders, with discounts on their rate notices, on their water, sewerage, electricity and gas bills, on their car registration and on their public transport fares. The National Seniors organisation estimates that these concessions can add up to about $1,000 to $1,200 of assistance to seniors each year. This is not an insignificant issue.

Guess what happened. The states and territories were left contemplating a significant and unexpected budget shortfall. The response from the states and territories has been feral. Denis Napthine, the Victorian Premier, lamented the Abbott government's termination of the national partnership as 'just another hidden landmine in the federal budget', and the lack of consultation had been 'unfair and unreasonable.' In my home state we saw a shortfall of $233 million over four years. The Queensland government initially refused to make up the shortfall. Initially Tim Nicholls said they were not going to pass it on; the problem was that they were unable to absorb the extra cost. That is what he said in his budget. This meant that 435,000 Queenslanders were set to be worse off. In my electorate, as of 31 March 2014 there were 13,803 recipients of the age pension and 953 holders of the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. This was a big impact, and grey power went mad in Queensland. Within a day or so there was a backflip and Campbell Newman and Tim Nicholls had to eat humble pie and restore that benefit. It just goes to show that even the government's state and territory colleagues are furious with what it has done in the budget.

As ACOSS has said, pensioners will be about $80 a week worse off within 10 years because of the changes to the indexation of the pension. Changes have been made right across the board with respect to the holders of these cards and our seniors, and those changes adversely impact upon them. This bill needs to be seen in the context of the budget measures. It is fine in and of itself but, when you look at it in the context of all the other broken promises, you have to choose where your priorities are. This government has its priorities wrong with respect to seniors and pensioners and cardholders, and we condemn it for that.

Wyatt Roy (Longman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting to hear the member for Blair talk about keeping promises. Of course, he was part of a government that promised that there would be carbon tax and delivered the world's largest carbon tax. I am proud to be part of a parliament that removed the world's largest carbon tax and that will save seniors in my electorate many thousands of dollars over the years. Let me get the detail of this legislation.

Before September's federal election, the coalition announced that in government we would index the income limits for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card, or CSHC, in line with the consumer price index. We are delivering on that commitment with this legislation, allowing the first annual indexation to occur from 20 September this year. The coalition recognises that self-funded retirees, after a lifetime of hard work, have made a significant contribution to our nation's success and are entitled to a safe and secure retirement. We understand that, by looking after their own retirement needs, they have freed the Commonwealth budget from considerable pension costs. Having done the right thing, many seniors live in fear of unexpected medical bills and losing their CSHC entitlement because of modest changes in their retirement. They deserve peace of mind.

The Commonwealth Seniors Health Card provides cost of living assistance to retirees of pension age, but who are ineligible for the age pension. The current health qualifying incomes of $50,000 for singles and $80,000 for couples have not been lifted since 2001. This government's decision to index those thresholds so that they do not erode in real terms will allow more self-funded retirees to access medicines listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme at the concessional rate. It also means increased eligibility for other card-carrying benefits such as reduced out of hospital expenses through the Medicare safety net and bulk-billed GP appointments at the discretion of the doctor. In fact, the income thresholds were not adjusted once during the nearly six years of the previous Labor government. We estimate that a further 30,000 self-funded retirees will be able to access the card in the next four years, due to this initiative we are debating tonight. Of course, many others will be able to keep their cards irrespective of minor fluctuations in their income.

The Commonwealth Seniors Health Card was introduced in 1994 primarily to help retirees on low-income. In fact, the original card income limits were the same as for the age pension, which meant that many of those eligible for assistance were asset rich but cash poor—such as retired farmers. From January 1999 qualifying limits for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card were changed to a taxable income test, with the income limits substantially increased so more self-funded retirees could benefit. In 2001 the coalition raised the limits again to the current level of $50,000 for singles and $80,000 for couples. This broadened access even further to include middle-income self-funded retirees with the number of card holders rising to about 318,000 across the term of the Howard government. In fact, when the Howard government came to power in March 1996, just 33,000 health card holders existed. In other words, the government's expansion of the CSHC as a means of assisting self-funded retirees to acquire medicines saw almost tenfold growth across the course of the former coalition government. Yes, there was a direct cost to the budget, but by removing a major disincentive for seniors to provide for themselves in their later years, they were further encouraged to be self-reliant in their retirement. In recent times the coalition has strongly argued for indexation of the income threshold to be rebooted, allowing more self-funded retirees to access the CSHC, an acknowledgement that over the past decade or more eligibility thresholds have deteriorated in real terms as a result of inflation and bracket creep.

We went to the last election with a plan to restore indexation and to fight Labor's attempt to restrict eligibility as part of our overarching support for self-funded retirees. We recognise the enormous contribution of these seniors to the success of our nation. We want to do everything we can to support a successful transition to self-reliance beyond their working years. The coalition is committed to a three-pillar retirement system: an aged pension as safety net; a compulsory system of retirement savings through superannuation; and incentives for voluntary savings. We encourage as many Australians as possible to actively plan and save for their retirement, to take full advantage of the benefits of the superannuation system and to work towards a self-funded retirement.

The previous Labor government increased taxation by almost $9 billion on Australians' superannuation savings and removed many of the Howard government's positive changes. By restoring stability and certainty to superannuation, this is a key part of this government's commitment to build a strong and prosperous economy. Mr Deputy Speaker, we keep our commitments. As I said before: today we have seen this. The former Labor government promised that there would be no carbon tax under their government and they introduced the world's largest carbon tax. Today we kept our commitment to repeal that. We also made other commitments during the election campaign on the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card, and we are keeping them. We will be standing by our commitment to index thresholds, because that is who we are—we are a government that will not waiver from its contract with the Australian people. This was the problem with the last government. It was a government that made promises and then repeatedly broke them in accordance with the cheap, political dictates of the Labor Party's faceless people.

We are not the government of dishonour and discredit that was the former ALP government. We are competent and trustworthy. We are the government that will act on what it says and it will do what it says to the Australian people. I might add that as well as our commitments on the seniors health card and superannuation as a whole, we are keeping faith with the veterans' community by now providing fair indexation of the Defence Force Retirement Benefits and Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits military superannuation pensions, and that applies to 1046 people in my electorate of Longman. The new and more favourable increases apply to DFRB and DFRDB superannuants aged 55 and over. The former government increased military superannuation pensions by the consumer price index only. We have kept our word: Australian veterans who have risked their life and limb deserve better than a government that says one thing before an election and another thing afterwards.

The coalition's indexation of the Commonwealth seniors health card will allow more self-funded retirees access to medicines listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme at the concessional rate. CSHC cardholders also receive access to Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme prescriptions, generally without charge, for the remainder of the calendar year after reaching the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Safety Net threshold; bulk-billed general practitioner appointments at the discretion of the doctor; and a reduction in the cost of out-of-hospital expenses, through the Medicare Safety Net. Indexation will occur annually in September, with the first indexation to occur in September this year, taking into account changes in the consumer price index over the current financial year.

The coalition's indexation of the CSHC will help reduce the cost of living for many more self-funded retirees. The carbon tax is now gone and under this government the previous Labor administration's damaging attacks on private health insurance have ended. With the elimination of carbon pricing, the average household will be better off by $550 a year. Families and seniors will see their electricity and gas bills reduced. Prices for groceries, household items and services will also fall, because the price of power is built into every cost in our economy. At the same time, Australians will get to keep the current income tax thresholds and fortnightly pension and benefit increases provided in the previous government's carbon tax package. That means tax cuts without a carbon tax. Pensioners will also be keeping the energy supplement, currently up to $361 a year for singles and up to $546 a year for couples. In other words, instead of just being a partial compensation for Labor's damaging carbon tax hit, these tax cuts and benefits will become genuine cost-of-living relief worth around $4 billion a year.

The coalition recognises that self-funded retirees save the Commonwealth considerable pension costs by looking after their own retirement needs. We also know that many self-funded retirees are not necessarily wealthy and, like all seniors, face significant financial pressures. Self-funded retirees of modest means have incomes that can vary year in, year out. Unexpected medical bills can be a significant worry for many seniors as they age. That is why we took to the election the commitment to index the income thresholds for the CSHC. It is a change that, for years, seniors and their representative organisations have been calling for. We have listened. By indexing each September the CSHC income thresholds, seniors will rightfully be receiving greater cost-of-living assistance as part of our plan to build a stronger nation and a better future for all Australians. I commend the bill to the House.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a reactionary budget. It is a vicious budget. It is a budget based on a manufactured emergency. It is a budget full of counterproductive austerity. Most of all it is a confusing budget; it is a really, really confusing budget. The member for Longman and before him the member for Bass both proved how confusing this budget is. Indeed, this bill is evidence of that confusion, a confusion of values within the Abbott government.

This bill, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Seniors Health Card and Other Measures) Bill 2014, provides indexation for some payments when the government is cutting it everywhere else. We heard the member for Bass and the member for Longman stand up in this House and say, 'We are fulfilling our commitments.' To use the words of the member for Longman, they are 'solemnly fulfilling their contract with the Australian people.' That is very Tea Partyesque, American, language.

Those opposite talk about promises and they talk about commitments. We know that on 6 September 2013 Tony Abbott said there would be no changes to pensions. What did we get? We got a new indexation system for pensions that gets rid of male average weekly earnings—which was put there by John Howard, I might add— and gets rid of the pensioner living cost index. It reduces that indexing to CPI and applies it to the age, disability and carers pensions as well as to the parenting payment. They are freezing all the means test thresholds on pensions, as well. So we have seen them get up in this House and, puffing and beating their chests, proudly tell us that they are meeting their commitments. Yet that core commitment—that there would be no changes to pensions—that Tony Abbott made on 6 September 2013 has been broken. It is a budget full of broken promises and confused rhetoric.

On 20 November 2012, Tony Abbott said, 'We're about reducing taxes; not increasing taxes. We're about getting rid of taxes; not imposing new taxes.' Yet they are increasing income tax and increasing petrol tax, and they are giving $400 million back to big business through changing and unwinding the tax integrity measures. It is a confused picture with tax. On 6 September 2013, Tony Abbott said that there would be no cuts to health. We got $50 billion worth of cuts—that is thousands of hospital beds, thousands of nurses, thousands of doctors. We got a $7 GP tax. It is not $7 once; it is $7 every time you go to the waiting room, every time you get a blood test and every time you get a scan. How that will operate has not been revealed by the government. It has not been revealed to the opposition. It has not been revealed to GPs. It has not been revealed to the Australian people. We suspect that the effect of that $7—that compounding, cascading $7—will be worse than the government is owning up to. There are increases to the PBS; that bill passed the House just this week. There is an attack on state government revenues and, consequently, encouragement for them to impose emergency room taxes on category 4 and 5 cases.

So we know that in those areas they are breaking their promises over and over again. Yet we saw the member for Bass and the member for Longman and others stand up in the parliament and proudly tell us how they have fulfilled their contracts with the Australian people. We heard all of their rhetoric about how they do what they say and say what they mean. It all came out a bit confused from the member for Longman: he was not quite sure what he was saying there for a while.

We know what Tony Abbott said about families on 4 May 2011:

A dumb way [to cut spending] would be to threaten family benefits or to means test them further

Yet in this budget he is cutting family tax benefit A and B by freezing indexation, and he is reducing the eligibility for family tax benefit B, costing some families $6,000. That is a real broken promise; that is a big broken promise.

We know what those opposite are doing on universities. We do not have a quote from the Prime Minister, but we have a quote from the now education minister, Christopher Pyne. On 26 August 2012, he said:

The Coalition has no plans to increase university fees …

That sounds like a commitment to the Australian people to me. What did we get? They increased the interest rate applied to HELP loans from 2.25 per cent in 2014-15 to six per cent. We all know that that is about creating a loan book which you later sell to some corporate entity. There has also been a 20 per cent increase in student contributions to university funding and a deregulation of course fees. We all know what that means. For nurses it might mean a $98,000 degree which they would end up paying off when they were 48.

This is a bill that runs contrary to the cascading river of broken promises from those opposite. We have indexation being introduced in some places where they are cutting them elsewhere. We have confusing rhetoric about the government meeting their commitments when we know they are breaking their promises everywhere else. When the Australian people look at this vicious budget, manufactured on a lie, that is full of austerity and broken promises, you can understand why they might be confused.

There are other areas where the government could be making savings. One such area is the Paid Parental Leave scheme. There is nothing wrong with paid parental leave, but this is a $21 billion scheme. You would have thought that such a massive expenditure runs somewhat contrary to the government's rhetoric on austerity. The government have kept superannuation breaks for the very richest in the community. Again, that runs contrary to this manufactured emergency and pledge of austerity. Further, the government are giving nearly $1 billion back to multinationals by unwinding various tax integrity rules that we introduced.

This is about introducing counterproductive austerity. That counterproductive austerity has done here what it has done in Europe, America and other places around the world—that is, smashed confidence. It has absolutely smashed people's confidence not just in the economy but in the safety net. What do people do when they do not have confidence in the economy and the safety net? I can tell you what they do. They stop spending. We have seen that reflected in consumer sentiment. Austerity has been a counterproductive disaster around the world because it undermines economic growth and subsequently undermines revenue. It means you find yourself going down the economic gurgler.

I heard the member for Bass utter words that those opposite are very reluctant to say in this parliament. He said the words 'global financial crisis' in this parliament. He talked about the global financial crisis.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask you to refer the member to the actual bill, which is the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Seniors Health Card and Other Measures) Bill 2014. I do not think I have heard the member refer to the bill once during his contribution.

I do not believe there is a point of order, but I would ask the member to address his comments to the bill.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I respect the chair and I am happy to refer to the social services bill—I will refer to it many times—but, with due respect, as the member knows, this has been a wide-ranging debate. People have been talking about the carbon tax, and the member for Bass was talking about the global financial crisis. He uttered those magic words. I was really quite surprised because, in acknowledging the global financial crisis, you have to acknowledge a whole lot of other things, such as how well Australia did during that crisis, the fact that we have a AAA credit rating, the fact that our economy performed very well and grew right through that period and the fact that Australia avoided recession and avoided losing 200,000 jobs. It was an important achievement for this country and for the government at that time. It stopped people being thrown into the slaughterhouse of unemployment. It is that terrible for people to be unemployed. If you look at Spain, for example: it was running a budget surplus before the GFC and they had terrible unemployment and terrible social consequences afterwards.

We see a budget that is confused in so many ways. On the one hand, those opposite have the same attitude to working- and middle-class people that conservative governments down the generations have had: feed the donkey less and whip him harder. And the attitude of those opposite is that the rich need an incentive. It is all part of a counterproductive ideology which is about enriching some, the people at the top, and austerity for the people at the bottom. For the self-funded retirees who are the subject of this bill, it is a game of three-card Monte—the little prize that you might get quickly disappears as the game goes on.

This budget is an appalling assault on Australian values. It is a reactionary budget. It is a vicious budget. It is a budget based on a manufactured emergency. It involves counterproductive austerity. What this bill proves and what the rhetoric of those opposite proves—the member for Bass and the member for Longman—is that it is a confused budget and a confused government that does not know what it is doing.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to rise on this most historic day when we have finally seen our nation rid itself of that dreadful carbon tax. Tonight I rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Seniors Health Card and Other Measures) Bill 2014—

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on point of order on relevance. The member reminded me of the need to address the bill, and I would just like to say that this bill does not involve the carbon tax.

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order but a point well made. I give the call back to the member for Hughes.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, I rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Seniors Health Card and Other Measures) Bill 2014. Unlike the good member for Wakefield, I actually will address the issues in this bill. This bill implements yet another of the coalition's election commitments, and this time it is our commitment to index the income thresholds for qualification for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. The beneficiaries of this bill will be 30,000 Australians who are self-funded retirees, who have worked hard all their life, who have been successful, who have sacrificed and who have put some money aside so that they would not have to rely on big government. These 30,000 people will benefit from this bill, otherwise they would have missed out. The reason they would have missed out on qualifying for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card is that during the six years of the previous Labor government, despite all the reckless spending, the waste and the mismanagement such as sending $900 cheques to people overseas and borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from overseas, they could not make that little step of indexing the income thresholds for people to qualify for this card. So 30,000 Australians, self-funded retires, who would have otherwise missed out on the seniors healthcare card will now qualify because of the changes that this government is making.

We know the reason why this measure was not taken during the six years of the Labor government. We know it is also the reason, despite the fairness of this measure, that members of the opposition have signified in their contributions to this debate that they are going to vote against this bill. I think the member for Bowman said it best during his contribution to this debate. He said that it was because Labor see self-funded retirees—those great Australians who have worked all their life and saved so that they would not be reliant on government—as 'enemies of the state'. The member for Bowman's words ring very true. So it is no surprise that we see the Labor Party in this chamber attacking self-funded retirees.

As I said earlier, today is a great day for self-funded retirees because of the measures in this bill. It is also a great day for self-funded retirees and, in fact, for all Australians, because today is the day when we finally see that the carbon tax is dead and buried. Electricity costs will be cheaper. Gas prices will come down. We know that small business—that important engine room of our economy—will benefit through lower costs. We know that Australian businesses will finally take a step to regain their international competitiveness. We know that jobs will be created, because finally the carbon tax joins that list of foolish taxes which have been sent to the taxation graveyard.

I think it is worthwhile in the short time that I have tonight to remember some of those foolish taxes throughout history, which the carbon tax now joins. First there was the Window Tax—a tax introduced back in 1696, when King William III of England introduced what was called an 'act of making good the deficiency of clipped money'.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. This does not have anything to do with the bill.

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. I give the call to the member for Hughes.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The previous speaker on the bill, the member for Wakefield, discussed the carbon tax—the one that the Labor Party were so desperate to keep that they voted against its repeal six times in this chamber. No wonder they want to try and silence debate. Getting back to the old, ridiculous taxes that the carbon tax now joins: the Window Tax 1696 was a tax on the number of windows that people had in their houses. What happens when you go around and tax the number of windows in people's houses is that they block their windows up. What effect did this have? It created many dark and damp tenements. The medical profession of the day understood that this mistaken tax actually was a source of disease and ill health. That is exactly what the carbon tax has done: it has created disease and ill health.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you kidding?

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hope that those opposite are listening to me. What has happened here is that, as the price of electricity was raised through the carbon tax, more than 20,000 people in New South Wales alone had their electricity cut off. What do those people do? How do they heat their homes in winter? What do they do when they have had their electricity cut off?

Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They've got a compensation package.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the member for Perth whingeing about a compensation package. I hope that the member for Perth goes to those people who have had their electricity cut off and stand before them and say, 'You guys have a compensation package; it's okay.'

Opposition members interjecting—

This is not a laughing matter. There are Australians in this country tonight who, because of the carbon tax, have had their electricity cut off and cannot afford to heat their homes. This is not a laughing matter. What if that happens to you, as it happens to many people? How else can you heat your home? In Sydney, people actually go and burn wood to try to keep their home warm. What happens when you burn wood? You release pollution into the atmosphere—particulate pollution. This may come as new information for the people sitting on the other side, but particulate pollution actually kills. Thousands of people in Australia die every year from outdoor air pollution. And in Western Sydney we currently have a serious issue with particulate matter pollution. Currently Western Sydney measures 2.5 for particulate-matter pollution. We are above World Health Organisation standards since the carbon tax came in—for a pollution that causes lung cancer, heart disease and asthma. That is a fact of what this carbon tax—increasing electricity prices—is causing.

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I would remind the member that we are addressing the social security bill, so I would ask him to keep on topic.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I am addressing the social security bill, because these are important steps. It is about protecting and looking after our self-funded retirees. That is what this bill is about, and there is nothing more we could do to help our self-funded retirees than to get rid of this most toxic tax. The threshold for this tax is currently $50,000 for singles and $80,000 for couples. So we know what would actually happen if we did not bring this indexation in: 30,000 Australians, many of them living in my electorate of Hughes, would simply miss out on getting that Seniors Health Card.

In the remaining time I would like to make some comments about other issues that were raised in this debate, firstly by the member for Ballarat. The member for Ballarat, in her contribution to this debate, whined on and on about so-called cuts to health and education. I know the Labor Party believes in their DNA that if you repeat a lie enough times people will eventually believe it. The fact is that this coalition government is not cutting health spending. We are increasing—repeat, increasing—health spending by nine per cent this year, nine per cent next year and nine per cent the year after. For education we are increasing—again, I repeat, increasing—health spending by eight per cent this year, with another eight per cent increase next year and then a further eight per cent increase. So, if members of the opposition want to come in here and whine about spending on health and education, they must say how much above those annual increases of eight and nine per cent they want. But most of all, where is the money coming from? There is no money tree out in the parliamentary courtyard. Every single cent of money that we raise must come from the taxpayer. Alternatively, it can be borrowed. It can be borrowed like it has been for the last six years. And when you borrow money, not only do you have to repay it sometime but also you have to service the interest along the way.

So, this financial year, this government must find $12 billion—that is 12,000 million dollars—just to service the interest. That is $1 billion every single month we have to service. And we have the member for Ballarat coming in here during her contribution to the debate whining about why Australians are worse off. We are worse off—the entire nation is worse off—because we have had six years of Labor government waste and reckless spending. Worst is that just to service the interest alone it is $500 for every man, woman and child in this country. Every man, woman and child in this country is $500 worse off every year. A family of four is worse off $2,000 every year just to pay the interest on the debt that these guys racked up.

So we have to take steps to try to wind back that debt, to make those interest repayments and to try to get this budget under control. But instead we see the opposition in complete denial. The member for Bendigo, in her contribution, continued on with this reckless scare campaign, scaremongering and trying to frighten pensioners. This is a disgrace, and we are seeing it repeatedly from members of the opposition, coming into this parliament and making statements in the media—completely false—entirely for the purpose of scaring pensioners. The truth is that there are no cuts to pensions. Pensions rise twice a year for the next three years, and they rise by the equivalent of average weekly male earnings. After that, they will still rise twice every year, and they will rise by the CPI. So we just cannot have members of the opposition going around scaring pensioners and old people. It is an absolute disgrace.

They are entitled to make whatever political points they want, but they should not tell falsehoods for the sake of their own political expediency by scaring older Australians. This bill should have the support of the opposition. But, sadly, the 30,000 Australians who would otherwise have missed out on getting that Seniors Health Card—30,000 over the next four years—in the next couple of minutes are going to see members of the opposition vote against this. So I hope that in the last couple of minutes maybe they might have a last-minute change, because the coalition and myself commend this bill wholeheartedly to the House.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker Goodenough, you have just missed out on quite an extraordinary debate. We had the member for Hughes taking us back 400 years, I think, to Georgian England. We are talking about the Seniors Health card here, and he mentioned Georgian England and the window tax. He gave us a very interesting history of Georgian England and the window tax and the implications in terms of health. And I do agree with him: the health implications of that ludicrous window tax were dreadful. He then segued into the fact that the carbon price was similar to the windows tax in that the carbon price was responsible for causing disease and ill health—carbon price equals disease and ill health. It was quite an extraordinary speech, Deputy Speaker. I am sorry you missed out on it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) took the chair at 9.30.