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

I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 5772, which has been circulated in the chamber:

(1)    Page 10 (after line 14), at the end of the bill, add:

PART 4—APPLICATION

21  Application

The amendments made by this Schedule do not apply in relation to an individual who had or was qualified to have a seniors health card under the Social Security Act 1991 or the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 as in force immediately before the commencement of this Schedule.

This relates to grandfathering. As I said in my earlier remarks on the previous amendments that the Greens moved, there are a group of people that already received the seniors card despite the fact that they are over the threshold. In effect, their salary is not being counted within their income in respect of the threshold. We do think it is unfair to take a benefit away from people when they already have it. Losing that benefit is what I think people are very worried about. We suggest that would make the system unfair. A group of such people have received the card and gained a benefit from it—because the card is a benefit—and they are now used to that benefit. This legislation, without this grandfathering clause, would take that away. We think that would be unfair to those people, and it has created a lot of fear for those people. It is unfair due to both the fear it has caused and the loss of the benefit itself. The system as it currently stands is unfair because, as I have said, couple A and couple B may both be on the same income but one couple gets the card and the other couple does not. That is unfair as well.

There is no way that the changes being introduced in the legislation will lead to a system whereby everybody wins. The Greens actually do agree with closing this loophole, so if you meet the threshold you get the card. However, as I have said, there is this group of people. Senator Stephens, Senator Scullion and I—the three Ss—have been talking about this issue. We have acknowledged that we do not know the exact number, though we know it will be significantly less than 22,000. We think a fair outcome of this is to close the loophole but look after those people that are getting the card. We realise that we will be entrenching that unfairness through the changes that are to come—though that is happening while the system is being made fairer overall—because it is also unfair that those people who are currently getting that benefit would be ticked off from getting that benefit and would no longer have access to it. So we believe that the fairest approach is to close the loophole and get that sorted out but also look after the people currently getting the card. We do that knowing full well that the number of 22,000 that is being used is now grossly exaggerated. Sorry, but ‘exaggerated’ is not the right word because ‘exaggerated’ implies an intent, and I do not believe that is the government’s intent. So let us say it is now artificially high because the global financial crisis has kicked in very significantly and has very strongly impacted these people’s earning capacity.

Can I state once again: it will not cut people off. If they are under, they will not suddenly drop off. If their income has been affected and they are down below $80,000, they will still get the seniors card. So to imply that, because people have been affected by the global financial crisis, they are getting a double whammy is in fact not true, because as soon as they go below that threshold they will in fact be able to claim the seniors card. We are trying to come up with a way of ensuring the government’s policy intentions are met to develop a fairer system so that everyone is on a level playing field. We would get rid of loopholes but look after those people who will be adversely affected now. We realise we are entrenching some unfairness. Grandfathering, by its very nature, does that. When the coalition government brought in the Welfare to Work provisions, they grandfathered a whole group of people who were already on the system. Then there were two different systems running at the same time, because they realised it was unfair for people who were already on the system to make them subject to those new provisions. Do not let anybody think that, therefore, I support Welfare to Work—I do not and never have—but I just want to acknowledge that the coalition did see that it was unfair and, when they brought in the changes to Welfare to Work, they did grandfather a whole group of people.

Grandfathering has been used on numerous occasions. So there is nothing unusual in making sure we protect a group of people who are used to accessing or are already accessing some benefits. We believe this is a fair approach that deals with the concerns of the people who fear they are going to lose benefits, but it does mean that people in the future will not have access to that loophole. We urge the chamber to support this amendment, because we believe it is a fair way forward.