Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I think the objections of the member for O’Connor to means testing demonstrate just where he stands on the political spectrum. I suspect that he probably even objects to progressive taxation.

I would like to turn to the legislation that we have before us today. I support it strongly. As a member of the government I know just how important health is. As a person who is very active in her local community and who has worked within health, I know that it is important that we have a vibrant, strong private health system, just as it is important that we have a vibrant, strong public health system.

Unfortunately, I do not think that members on the other side of this House really understand just how important health is. When the Howard government was in power one of their first acts was to close the Commonwealth dental health scheme—a scheme that was responsible for providing dental care to people on low incomes. Another one of their great achievements in the area of health was to rip money out of the public hospital system! Members on the other side of the House are opposed to anything that is an investment in the public system, whereas we on this side of the House support both the public and the private systems. We support both of them very strongly.

The legislation that we have before us today, the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2009, the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2009 and the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Bill 2009, is very important legislation. It is proposed that, from 1 July 2010, three new private health insurance incentive tiers will be introduced to better balance the mix of incentives for people to take out private health insurance. Existing arrangements will remain unchanged for singles with incomes less than $75,000 and families with incomes of less than $150,000.

In the electorate that I represent in this parliament, 49 per cent of the voters—this is going on information provided to me by the private health insurance industry so they highlight voters—have private health insurance. I decided that I would have a look at the information from the 2006 census. That showed me that 12.6 per cent of people in Shortland electorate earn $1,000 a week. The rest of the residents in Shortland electorate earn under $1,000 a week. Now, if I was to take that up to the amount that I needed to to come up with a figure of $75,000 a year I suspect it would be under 10 per cent of the single population that would be affected by these changes.

Similarly, 15 per cent of families received $2,000 a week in wages, which is $104,000 a year. If you take that up to $150,000 I would say that it would be, once again, 10 per cent or less that would be affected by the changes. I think that the private health insurance rebate should be delivered to people who need it—and that is what this legislation will enable. Those people that need assistance to pay their private health insurance should receive that assistance. The people who can manage to pay their private health insurance without assistance should not receive that assistance.

Shortland has a large number of pensioners living in it. I am quite confident that a large percentage of the 49 per cent of voters in Shortland electorate who have private health insurance are actually pensioners. And the changes that will come in under this legislation will not have an impact on those people.

I will go through the changes. The legislation will introduce a three-tier system. Tier 1 will apply to singles with an income of more than $75,000 and families with an income of more than $150,000, as I alluded to previously. The private insurance rebate will be 20 per cent, increasing to 25 per cent at the age of 65, and 30 per cent at the age of 70, for people who go over that threshold. The other part of this legislation is an incentive for people who currently have private health insurance and who have incomes that exceed the amount that I have mentioned. There will be a Medicare levy surcharge of one per cent for not taking out private health insurance.

Tier 2 will be for singles earning more than $90,000 income and families earning more than $180,000 income. I might add that there would be very few families in the electorate I represent in this parliament that would fit into that category. There would be some but there would be very few. Knowing the people of the electorate that I represent, I know that those who are committed to taking out private health insurance will continue to take out private health insurance. For the tier 2 people the rebate will be 10 per cent increasing to 15 per cent at the age of 65 and 20 per cent at the age of 70. Tier 3 will apply to singles with incomes over $120,000 and families with incomes over $240,000. Therefore those groups will not receive any rebate at all.

This is about rebalancing health insurance and the rebate that is paid. It is about ensuring that those people who actually need to access a rebate to be able to afford private health insurance will receive that rebate. It is for low- and middle-income earners, and the private health insurance rebate will remain unchanged for them. But I do not believe that people on low and middle incomes should have to subsidise the private health insurance of somebody like me. I think it is rather obscene that somebody earning $35,000 or $45,000 should have to subsidise the private health insurance of somebody earning $150,000 or $200,000 or families earning in that range. It is just not the Australian way.

See this speech in context