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

The Greens will not be supporting this measure. We do not believe it is part of a well thought out approach to how we best support people in our community. At a time when the government are targeting the youngest in our community, forcing them to live on no income—not just low income but no income—for six months or potentially more, a year; at a time when they are targeting age pensioners, people that are on the pension, by increasing the retirement age and by reducing the indexation, which will have a very real impact on those people; at a time when they are reducing indexation on the disability support pension and, in fact, making other changes that will significantly affect people living with a disability; at a time when they are yet again targeting single parents; at a time when they are reducing payments to families that will have a significant impact, it is not the right time for the government to make another ad hoc decision to keep a promise. How about keeping their promises about Medicare? Remember the Prime Minister said he was going to be Medicare's best friend. Well, if that is its best friend, I would hate to see its worst enemy! The government promised they would not impact on the pension: 'Don't worry, the pension changes will not come in until 2017.' Well, every Australian can see through that transparent attempt to make it look as if they are not doing anything to pensions. They are also changing asset limits.

There is a very long list of how this government is making decisions about our income support system that will significantly affect, quite clearly, the most disadvantaged. We do not think it is an appropriate time for the government to then change the indexation of the seniors card, particularly when counting super in is not being dealt with in this piece of legislation. It is being brought in in other legislation that brings in all the awful changes, is also out of whack with this bill and grandfathers a whole number of people in a way that we think is disproportionately helping one group of people when this budget so badly affects so many others in our community.

This budget is brutal to those on low incomes. The government made that decision for the budget knowing full well—having had advice—that it will disproportionately hurt the most disadvantaged in our community as will the other measures that have been brought in, such as co-payments on prescriptions, such as co-payments on visits to the doctor, such as uni fees—the list goes on and on.

With all that impact on the most vulnerable Australians, the government decides to move on this—at a cost of $100 million. What will that money mean to young people who will be living on nothing for six months or longer? We heard again today from the Brotherhood of St Laurence. Its latest report showed just how many young people are going to be affected by that measure and also by the government's flawed approach. We are freezing eligibility thresholds, and we have the co-payment. We have many measures that are negatively impacting on the most disadvantaged in our community.

This bill seeks to change the indexation of the Commonwealth seniors health card. As Senator Moore said, it has not been a regular process. Given that we do have concerns about indexation and the way the government is producing indexation on the age pension, on parenting payments—which kicks in straightaway; it is not wait until 2017, and that indexation is being changed on the DSP—you would think we would support this.

You have to look at this in the context of the flawed approach through the budget. The card does give access to cheaper prescriptions, medical services and other concessions, and the government estimates that this will allow an extra 27,000 retirees over the next four years to qualify for the card. At the same time, the government is not introducing its legislation to deal with the changes, to count-in super, until next year and that will grandfather the current recipients. In other words, there will be a group of people in here who still will not have to count their super payments into their income. We do not believe this is an appropriate approach. I should flag here that we will support the amendments circulated by the ALP, which seek to omit schedule 1, and then support the rest of the bill. However, if those amendments are not successful we will not be supporting the bill.

I know this card is highly valued among a number of older Australians, because it does provide a number of benefits. However, we have to look this budget and how people will be severely impacted by it, and we have to it weigh up. Eligibility for this card has to be reached by pension age—but not to qualify for a payment from Centrelink or Veterans' Affairs. These people need to provide a tax file number, and meet the income test and residency requirements. Almost 300,000 self-funded retirees receive discounts on PBS medicines, GP visits and hearing aids through this.

While retirees must earn less than $50,000 a year if single and 80,000 if part of a couple, to qualify for the card income earned from super investments is treated as tax free and is not considered when determining eligibility. This is the government's chance to look at retirement. As was pointed out earlier, we also have the McClure review at this time, which looks at other welfare payments. There have been some pretty wild suggestions made through this review into income support, and I know that a number of organisations are calling for a retirement review as well. We think that is the time we should be looking at those sorts of payments. In fact, the argument was made by ACOSS at the inquiry we had, two weeks ago, into the government's other bills that bring in those severe cuts I have just been talking about.

In order to have a meaningful discussion about retirement incomes, superannuation needs to be included. I know the government has this on its radar but surely we should be making sure that these changes are aligned. The government is bringing in a series of changes that significantly hit older Australians. We have to remember that we also have a group of older Australians who have fallen out of employment, are suffering from age discrimination and are not able to regain employment. They are not getting adequate support to regain employment because they are not necessarily gaining access to the appropriate training and support through our employment system.

These people will be stuck on Newstart, which this government also has not increased or seen fit to change in the budget. It is bringing in a lot of cuts to people but not bringing in changes that will make a significant difference. We have a lot of Australians who are living on $36 a week. They are living below the poverty line. If we have a little money to invest, that is where we should be investing it. We need to make sure we are supporting the most vulnerable in our community. The government needs to be investing that money where it will help those hardest hit by this budget—and not using it to justify the most significant cuts.

Pensioners will be significantly hit by this budget. Unless you fix things that are impacting on older Australians there are many who will be significantly disadvantaged by an increase of the retirement age to 70. They will be forced to live on the inadequate Newstart for a significant period. There are a number of measures that already hit older Australians significantly that will reduce their standard of living. I have already touched on the fact that the government is reducing indexation of the pension. We had evidence to the Senate inquiry that when it comes into full effect it will amount to up to $80 per week for an age pensioner. That is a significant amount for people to lose from the budget.

The other measure we are looking at is the extension of the retirement age, which will mean more people—unless we address the barriers to employment—trying to survive on Newstart. Rather than looking at this measure in isolation, we also need to be looking at—as I touched on earlier—what we could do with that money. For example, we could better target it to support the most vulnerable in our community. We could improve our employment services, particularly targeting older Australians. It is hypocritical for the government to be flagging this particular issue when they are actively seeking, for example, to cut the low-income superannuation contribution and ignoring the impact it will have on many Australians, particularly older women. Then, of course, there is the impact of the Medicare co-payment and its impact on pensioners and older Australians—as was discussed a bit earlier by Senator Moore.

I am sure that the people who would receive this would be very happy to be able to access this card if this CPI increase were delivered. The problem is that this is being done in the face of harsh cuts to the most vulnerable members of our community. What about the single parents who are going to lose access to the pensioner education support scheme yet again? What about people living with a disability who are going to lose access to the pensioner education supplement, and the impact that has on their lives? What about the cruel measure in which the government is reducing portability of DSP from six weeks to four weeks? Again, that is targeting, demonising and implying that people are living on the largesse of Australia while travelling overseas. I have had a number of people with disability that have contacted my office expressing severe concern about that.

I have had a number of pensioners contact my office expressing the most significant concern about GP co-payments, about having to pay more for their medications and about the impact of, in particular, the indexation measure that will reduce their pensions by $80 per week. This is an inappropriate increase. It is inappropriate for the government to say that it is keeping this promise but forgetting all the other promises that it made while it tears down universal health care, while it tears down people's aspirations for higher education and while it makes it harder for single parents and for young people. For young people—that is the key. That is the key thing that I just cannot get over. How can you expect young people to live for six months on nothing? Soon we will resume debate in this place about the stronger penalties provision. How can you expect young people to survive? What do you think their reaction will be when they hear this? 'Look! They have indexed the Commonwealth health card so that a couple more people will be able to get a little more help at that end when you are condemning us to live on nothing.'

Yes, we should be helping older Australians. I do not want anybody listening or reading this debate later to think that we do not think that helping older Australians is not important, because it is. I have just outlined the impacts that this government's budget is having on older Australians. But the government is choosing to help a small group while, at the same time, condemning people to have to survive later when taking 80 bucks out of their pension a week.

I know how much that will hurt people. I know how much that will hurt age pensioners. Remember, age pensioners are not earning the income earned by a certain group that this government is rewarding. So let us look at how, overall, we can help older Australians and make sure that we are not advantaging one group while disadvantaging another, because that is not being fair to older Australians. Let us not do that while condemning hundreds and thousands of people to surviving on less, because that is also what this budget is doing.

We will not be supporting this measure. As I said, we will be supporting the motion to split this schedule and then voting against that schedule and for the other schedules. But, if that motion is not successful, we will not be supporting this bill.