Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Hansard source

We will not be supporting what I will refer to as the first amendment, but I acknowledge what you are trying to achieve. The principle under which we do not support the first amendment is that, if we are tinkering with this at all, the coalition believe that we should be doing this in the context of having all the information. I acknowledge that the minister says, ‘You have only had it a month and it is difficult,’ but that is why we find it a bit difficult to understand why we are bringing this legislation on at this time rather than at a time—perhaps when we come back—when we have all had time to consider it and after the government has considered the Harmer report. I think we would all be in a much better position.

We know that the Harmer report is going to cover that entire ambit, whether you are a pensioner or self-funded retiree. There will be a number of adjustments made. Clearly the Harmer report was a legitimate attempt to ensure that, if any adjustments are made, we know exactly what is going to happen at the end of the day rather than try to make the adjustments piecemeal. As I have indicated before, we disagree with the government rolling back the support for seniors, and I will not go into that again.

To Senator Siewert I would like to amplify one of the reasons that in 2001 we changed the eligibility and the numbers increased. I appreciate that you are not being mischievous about the comparisons with the youth allowance and other demographics. This is a health card. By the time you get to a certain age—and no-one is questioning the age—the costs of life become much greater, and often at a geometric rate. As you become sicker today, it is going to cost you an awful lot more. It is very, very expensive to be older. That is what this is about. I acknowledge that we can say, ‘Perhaps it does seem like a lot of money.’ To one of those couples on $42½ thousand a year, it might seem like a lot of money, but I am not sure we can reasonably index this against paying for good health.

The consequences of being in or out of the Commonwealth seniors health card—because we are saying, quite legitimately, that we are going to move this a little bit to get a saving—are dramatic. I think you will acknowledge it is a bit of a cliff fall without talking about 600 per cent. Access to prescriptions at a reasonable rate so that people can afford to pay for their own health care is one of the fundamentals of this, and for those people who need a wide range of prescriptions it is a dramatic change. I do not think anyone is in doubt of that. We are only not happy to discuss and support the first amendment on the basis that I have just outlined. I think the Greens would also acknowledge that the government has said, quite rightly, that the Harmer review has only been out a short while. That makes me wonder why, when we have had a review, you would be bringing legislation on now rather than waiting for an appropriate time when we would all be able to have a very ordered look at a comprehensive investment by government.

Instead what we know today is that we are spending $19.3 million in a process that is going to give us a net saving of $84.4 million. I have to say that that smacks very much of Treasury rather than of someone who is looking comprehensively at this. This is all about savings. If we are going to make those savings—if the government have decided to make savings across the board and if they have decided that they are going to make savings across the board in regard to senior Australians—then surely it would be far better to do that in an environment where we have all of the information at hand so we can make an informed decision about our most senior Australians. There is just no motive in my mind for bringing this on now.

I will just touch on the second amendment—the so-called grandfathering. I think we should be in this place to make any legislation better. If we are all about saving the 22,000 people who may be affected by this by accepting the Greens grandfathering clause then of course it will be better. At this stage I do not want to throw that out completely. But I would say to the Greens, if you are interested in this grandfathering clause, the best way to deal with this legislation is to simply join the coalition in voting it down. We would much prefer to have a look at this legislation in the light of the Harmer review. I think the thrust of what you are doing with the grandfathering clause is very useful because it recognises the angst and the pain of the 22,000 people who will be falling off the cliff shortly if this legislation is passed. I acknowledge that.

But I would appeal to the Greens to join with the coalition to provide an opportunity to scrutinise this legislation when we have the very best possible information available—information that has already been paid for by taxpayers and information that is supposed to be out there to inform this place and the other place and to inform Australians. I think that if the Greens join us in that context then we can have a bipartisan, rational and transparent approach to how we deal with the future arrangements in terms of the health care of our senior Australians. I would think that is a far better idea than voting in a grandfathering clause that will save some. We still do not have an extract understanding of how that will have an impact on them because there are other things coming down the line.

Obviously in the Harmer review there are going to be some changes to how we allocate pensions and how we deal with our seniors, and I think that people need to know what the final position on this is. We are unable to do that today and I appeal to the Greens to support the coalition in simply voting down the legislation. As I said, whilst I acknowledge the thrust of the grandfathering amendment I think it would be far better and far more responsible, both fiscally and in a humanity sense, to wait until we have all of the information from the Harmer review.