Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I appreciate that this is a fairly wide-ranging debate, as you have mentioned, Madam Deputy Speaker. I support the Tax Laws Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007 and cognate bills before the House and I endorse some of the remarks that were made by the member for Chifley in relation to the Medicare levy and the dental care arrangements that have been put in place by the government. I commend the government on the new university places at the Charles Sturt Dental School in Orange. I think they are a very positive move forward. But I wish the government had looked more closely at the Medicare arrangements for accessing dental care. It is obvious to most of us that our teeth are part of our body and they should be treated as such by those people accessing care for their dental problems—and I do not mean cosmetic problems. The government has, to a certain degree, recognised that, if people with chronic problems and certification by their doctor are not treated for their oral health, it will lead to other complications and they will be need to be treated under the Medicare arrangements. That is a good move, but if they were not treated they would enter into the health-care system and the Medicare arrangements would be triggered anyway. I urge the government, particularly after the good economic management that has been conducted over a number of years and in light of the sums of money that have been accumulated, to look closely in the future at the relationship between Medicare, the Medicare levy and dental care.

I seek a little licence, Madam Deputy Speaker, to commend a constituent of mine, Mrs Ruth Mathews, who for some time has been conducting a campaign to get the government to look at the Medicare levy, which this legislation does, with a view to increasing it if needed so that dental care can be provided to all and covered under the Medicare provisions. She has gathered thousands of signatures for her petition, which will be presented to the parliament. I commend her as a citizen for the work that she is doing and for her use of the parliamentary processes.

The Tax Laws Amendment (2007 Budget Measures) Bill 2007 identifies a range of measures in relation to dependent spouses. It will increase the Medicare levy threshold, and I agree with the intent of that arrangement. Taxation generally, and the use of taxation policy, is about sending a range of messages to the broader community. It is a very important part of government policy because it delivers signals which may be an incentive for the community to do something. I noticed, for instance, that the superannuation arrangements put in place certain incentives for people to look after themselves long term, and I think those measures in the budget should be applauded.

Taxpayers are sent other messages that I think are complicated, complex and sometimes bewildering. In this bill, for instance, there is a clear message being sent to taxpayers, particularly with regard to low-income earners and the thresholds relating to Medicare. But if one looks closely at some of the other measures where taxation policy is being used it becomes a little more complicated. The taxation message that current policy is sending to the community, particularly to those who are looking to invest in renewable fuels—and I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you take a particular interest in renewable fuels and the climate debate—is that by 2011 those who are investing in renewable fuels will be taxed under the excise arrangements. I use that as a very good example of the wrong message being sent. We have a policy message being sent almost daily by government and opposition about climate change, sustainability, renewable energy sources et cetera—

See this speech in context