Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

The Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy Surcharge Thresholds) Bill (No. 2) 2008, which we are bringing back to the House this afternoon, will deliver immediate benefits to 250,000 Australians by adjusting the Medicare levy surcharge thresholds from their current levels of $50,000 for singles and $100,000 for couples and families, which was set by the Liberal government in 1997, to a change to $70,000 and $140,000 respectively. We know that there are many hundreds of thousands of Australians who will benefit from this bill being passed today by the Senate and, hopefully, now by the House—250,000 Australians in fact. These 250,000 Australians have not had the support of the Liberal Party for the tax relief that they will be gaining. There is an opportunity of course for them in the House now to show their support for this relief that will be provided, and vote for the measure. Very importantly, the amendments before the House also ensure that these thresholds will be indexed against wages in subsequent years, locking fairness into the system for the future so that the Medicare levy surcharge will never again become the tax trap that the Liberals created in 1997, and by failing to act over the following 10 years they increasingly exposed more and more people to this unfair tax.

I place on the record the government’s appreciation for the constructive manner in which the Australian Greens, Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding have conducted themselves during our negotiations over this legislation in the last few days. Of course, it will not be a surprise to this House that we did not agree on all matters but we have been able to reach a sensible compromise which I think is a tribute to all involved. In particular the Australian Greens were very concerned that the measure of indexation that be used be wages—something the government strongly supports as it is of course the way we ensure a tax trap is not created. They have also sought and we have happily granted an assurance about investing heavily in public hospitals, something very dear to our hearts, to make sure we keep the balance of our investment between private and public insurance right.

Senator Xenophon was concerned to ensure that the threshold was at a lower point. He had a view that it should be lower than that proposed in the bill that was before the Senate and has asked that we agree to a referral to the Productivity Commission with, I think, a legitimate request on his behalf to get more information in the public arena, enabling the public to be able to compare and contrast public and private services and the cost of those services. We have explained, and I know Senator Xenophon has noted, that much of this work is being undertaken through the COAG process in terms of the public side of this debate, and we have made that clear to and been engaged in discussions with the private providers as well. So this is something that we will work on, noting that the other important work of COAG needs to be undertaken first in order for the Productivity Commission to have some of the data that it might want.

I record the government’s appreciation for the constructive approach taken. It is of course part of our democracy that the Senate does not always have the same colour as the House and I think that it has been a constructive approach. Disappointingly for us the Liberals have been determined to maintain an opposition to this tax relief to hurt the surplus. In great contrast, the Greens and Independents have shown economic responsibility and we thank them for that. The Liberals approach to this is about as relevant as the Medicare levy surcharge thresholds that they want to maintain.

Let me make it clear to the House—and it might assist those opposite, because they have been determined to ignore these figures—that two people on average incomes of $60,000 each will get a tax cut provided by this bill of $1,200, something that the Liberal Party have opposed. For singles earning between $50,000 and $70,000, it will be $500, $600 or $700—something that people dearly need in these difficult times. We also know that many other Australians will benefit from having a real choice about their health care. When budgets are tight Australians will be able to make real decisions about where they want to spend their money, without having fear of being hit by a tax penalty.

In opposing this bill—and I am sure we will hear more of this—the Liberal Party have feigned concern about the potential impact of this measure on public hospitals. They have feigned concern, because we know that it was the former Minister for Health and Ageing responsible for the previous negotiations who pulled $1 billion out of our public hospitals. He is here rolling his eyes again, showing his lack of interest and commitment to the public and their healthcare needs. I think it is a sad indictment when those opposite—(Time expired)

See this speech in context