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

We know very well that we are not talking about 22,000 people at this stage. I am frustrated that we cannot get access to better data, but we are not talking about 22,000 people at this stage. I would like to ask both Senator Scullion and Senator Stephens a question. One question is to the coalition, and this is on an issue—and it sort of relates to our grandfathering clause too—that the Greens have some trouble with. Let us take the example of two couples on the same income. One couple, because they do not have access to the superannuation process the Howard government introduced in 2007, do not have access to the loophole—let us describe it like that. The other couple, who are on the same income, do have access to the superannuation process and the taxation process—and I will not bore the chamber by going into the technical details—and basically, because they can access the loophole, they can access a seniors card. The problem for us is: how is that fair? We acknowledge that it is difficult to take something away from somebody and that is why, upon reflection, we have proposed the grandfathering clause—because we do not think it is fair to take something away from somebody.

We know there are fewer than 22,000 people because we know that there has been a massive impact on superannuation funds. So we think that is fair. We have fixed the loophole but we will also look after that group of people—though they still get an advantage over fellow retirees on the same income. We have looked after them and we have not taken anything away from them, but we have fixed it for the future. We think that is fair.

Senator Stephens, I would like to know why you think it is fair that, because of a loophole, a group of people can be earning the same amount of money as another but one group cannot access the seniors card. Could you confirm that my understanding is correct that the people that would no longer be able to access the card would still get the PBS and Medicare safety net?

I get the issue around the increased cost of health care—I really do. Bear in mind also that those couples generally no longer have to pay a mortgage or pay the exorbitant cost of raising children—unless those children are the generation X, Z or whatever that are still staying at home. They have increased health costs but their other costs are reduced. But there will still be a safety net, as I understand it, under those medical expenses. We are talking about, for PBS, a baseline and also, for Medicare, a safety net, aren’t we? It is not as if the healthcare costs for these people are going to absolutely skyrocket, because they will still have access to that safety net. Could you please confirm that I am correct?