Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 5758:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:

(1)   Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 16), after item 2, insert:

2A  Point 1071-12 (table)

Repeal the table, substitute:

(2)    Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 7) after item 5, insert:

5A  Point 118ZZA-11 (table)

Repeal the table, substitute:

Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000—

These amendments increase the taxable income limits under the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 used to determine qualification for the seniors health card and will have the effect of increasing the number of people who will be eligible for the card.

As the card entitles the holder to discounts on prescription medicines through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; bulk-billing with participating doctors; reduced out-of-hospital expenses above the threshold through the Medicare Safety Net; and certain cash payments through the income support system, this will result in increased expenditure under standing appropriations in the National Health Act 1953 , the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 .

The amendments are therefore presented as requests.

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000—

The Senate has long followed the practice that it should treat as requests amendments which would result in increased expenditure under a standing appropriation, although this interpretation is not consistent with other elements of the established interpretation of the third paragraph of section 53 of the Constitution. This has nothing to do with the introduction of bills under the first paragraph of section 53.

On the basis that these amendments would result in increased expenditure under the standing appropriations in the National Health Act 1953, the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that these amendments be moved as requests.

These are the amendments I flagged in my speech in the second reading debate to move the threshold for eligibility from $50,000 to $60,000 for singles and from $80,000 to $85,000 for couples. We believe that these are fairer thresholds that accompany the closing of the loopholes, which the government is seeking to do in this legislation. These thresholds have not been raised for a significant time period of time, so we believe that it is appropriate that the thresholds increase. As I said in my speech, we are particularly concerned about the threshold for single people because older single Australians have been identified as a particularly vulnerable group. In particular, we believe women in that group are particularly vulnerable, so we think a $60,000 threshold is more appropriate and, in fact, aligns with average weekly earnings. We also believe that to be the appropriate level to put the threshold at.

I would also like to take this opportunity to remind the chamber that in a bill that we debated last night, the Fair Work Bill, everybody except the Greens agreed to a high-income threshold of $100,000, for which workers on $100,000, because they are on a high income, are exempt from award conditions. So in that bill we class $100,000 as a high income, beyond which workers are not then subject to the same protections of our industrial relations system, yet in this bill, when we are talking about these issues, $100,000 or $80,000 is not regarded as a high income. Contrary to what Senator Nash said—with all due respect to Senator Nash because I know she cares very deeply about older Australians, as do the Greens—we have been advocating an increase in the age pension for many years. The coalition, when they were in government, did not raise the age pension income. It makes me question their new-found sincerity and interest in looking after senior Australians when, for 11 years, they did not address this very serious issue around the cost of living for older Australians and those living on pensions.

However, it is not older Australians who are living on pensions that we are talking about right now; it is those who are not on pensions that do need the extra assistance. The reason the Keating government—and I am not defending the Keating government—introduced this threshold in the first place was to help those people who did not make the eligibility criteria for the age pension but needed extra assistance. The threshold has been set at $80,000 for couples, and we think it should be $85,000. But you are talking about people who are on a relatively high income. As I said, in the bill that we discussed last night, this place said $100,000 was a high income. So you are talking about people on a high income. We are talking about people on or around that income who may be eligible for the seniors card. All this bill is saying is, ‘We count all your income in the threshold of $80,000,’ or, if you go with our amendment, $85,000. So we are ending this disparity between the income that is counted and the income that is not counted.

The evidence shows that there are people who are likely to be on $100,000 but who, because of the process they have used in the past to salary sacrifice, if they have taken advantage of the Howard government’s superannuation changes in 2007, are still able to access the benefits of this card. The Greens have concerns. We think we need to be investing our scarce resources into helping those most in need. That includes helping people on the age pension by increasing the age pension. We have been begging governments, both the previous government and this new government—it is not so new any more—to raise the age pension. That is where we want to be investing because it is those people who are most in need.

I will very briefly touch on the people who are on Newstart at the moment. Unfortunately, increasing numbers of Australians are being forced into unemployment. A partnered family is trying to survive on $21,268 a year. The Greens have put the threshold at $85,000—four times what people on Newstart get. Would we not be better investing our efforts in helping those people? The next bill we will be talking about is a tax amendment bill, and that has a schedule in it that changes fringe benefits tax, which will impact on some of our lowest income and hard-working Australians. I will be absolutely fascinated to hear what the coalition have to say about that bill. Here they are, standing up for older Australians, which is fair enough, but I want to know if they are going to stand up for low-income Australians, because that is exactly what I expect them to be doing in the next bill.

We are talking about people who are on the threshold. The threshold is four times what somebody on Newstart gets a year. If we look at it in that context, where is the fairness? We think the threshold should be increased to $85,000. What we, the Greens, are talking about is, firstly, making sure that everyone is on the same level playing field. Then we are talking about increasing the thresholds for that level playing field to $85,000 and to $60,000. We think that is pretty fair, when you consider the overall circumstances that all Australians are facing. Bear in mind that, if self-funded retirees’ incomes go down—not through any fault of their own, because they have made very careful investments, but because the effects of the global financial crisis on the stock market have meant that their superannuation and the other investments they are relying on have tanked—they will fall below the threshold and be eligible for that support. Bear in mind also that they are still above the aged-care pension threshold. If they fall below the threshold level for the aged-care pension, they will get the aged-care pension and the seniors card. But if they are still lucky enough to be on $85,000 or over—and you are talking of up to and over $100,000—that, in anybody’s book, is a significant amount of money today, particularly when the predictions are that we may see unemployment at over seven per cent. And what will that mean for our economy? What will that mean for those people’s families? Those people are going to be forced into unemployment, again through no fault of their own.

We Greens believe that we need to be looking at where we invest the money. Ideally—if we could get away with hypothecating this—we would say to government: ‘Hypothecate this to help unemployed people.’ We want the government to increase Newstart allowance. Newstart payments are even lower than the age pension because they have not gone up at the same rate as the age pension has.

We need to make some fundamental changes in the way that we look after our most vulnerable in Australia. We do need to be looking after older Australians, we absolutely agree. But we think we need to be investing this money, our scarce resources, into helping those Australians who are genuinely in need, including older Australians who are genuinely in need, and that includes increasing the age pension. We have been on the record constantly as saying to government: ‘Raise the age pension; raise the age pension.’ With all due respect to the coalition, when they talk about supporting older Australians I think there is a group of older Australians on whom we should focus strongly. Everybody needs our strong support—and they need our particular focus at the moment because they are going to be suffering even more in these economic circumstances.

So we think there should be a balance. Through this amendment we can make sure that everyone is on a level playing field, but we should also make sure that we raise that threshold. That would be a fair outcome for this debate. In particular, raising the single threshold to $60,000 would deal with the issues that single older Australians face. They have been identified as suffering the most in terms of their ability to enjoy a decent quality of life. That is what the committee inquiry into the cost of living for older Australians reported: all older Australians should have access to the resources to facilitate a decent quality of life. And that is what we are talking about.