House debates
Thursday, 4 June 2009
Matters of Public Importance
Private Health Insurance
4:22 pm
Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source
As the member for Moreton says, it is puffery and he would know that the member for Bowman is an advocate of puffery because their electorates are near each other, and he would also have seen the performance of the member for Dickson. The member for Dickson is a man who is a slave to sectional interests. The alcopops debate showed how much he was in the pocket of the distillers. On the one hand it was put forward by the member for Bowman that we should not have supported the position we did on alcopops, and on the other hand he was quoting the AMA’s report card. I say to the member for Bowman that the AMA supported the government’s position on alcopops. They saw that it was a very important initiative. It has been read into the records of this parliament on various occasions by a number of speakers and that is fact, whereas the member for Bowman talks about ‘everyone knows’.
When it comes to the health insurance industry, we support private health insurance and we also support private hospitals. But we like to put a line in the sand between us and the private health insurance industry, whereas the member for Dickson runs to them all the time for advice. My question to the member for Dickson is: when is he going to stop being a slave to sectional interests and become a slave to the Australian people? When is he going to listen to the people of Australia and make decisions that are based on their interests? He is one of the most out-of-touch members of this parliament.
Let us be very clear here and make sure that all the people in Australia listening to this debate know what the member for Dickson wants. He wants people on low incomes to subsidise his private health insurance. He wants people that are earning a third of what he earns to subsidise his private health insurance. I do not expect that; I do not expect the people of Shortland electorate to subside my private health insurance.
The member for Dickson and members of the opposition generally have put forward a smear and fear campaign. They have put forward a proposition that this policy will have an impact on pensioners. Mr Speaker, show me a pension who is earning $75,000 a year. The member for Dickson is distorting the truth, he is not being honest with the Australian people and he has put forward a position that is just blatantly untrue.
The member for Dickson was a minister in the failed Howard government that chose to direct a large proportion of its spending on health to the private health insurance rebate. It ripped $1 billion out of hospitals, it closed the Commonwealth Dental Health Program and it claimed that it supported dental health through the private health insurance rebate. There are a number of people within Australia that received absolutely no assistance from the former government in relation to dental health. The former government put in place the chronic dental health program but there were only a very, very small percentage of people that could actually access it. There was a message for the member for Dickson from a GP in a coalition-held electorate which was that the program did not work, that it took a lot of time and effort and that the outcomes were very poor, and there were a number of people who missed out when they should not have. The government has a Dental Health Plan for all Australians but has been frustrated by the opposition. Further, when the failed Howard government was in power they allowed a chronic workforce shortage in the mental health area.
I want to place on the record that the Rudd government strongly supports a strong, vibrant public and private health industry, and that the member for Dickson is just full of huff and puff. He is all about looking after his mates. He is not about universal health care; he is about a two-tiered health system where people who can least afford it have to pay for basic health care. We on this side of the House believe that any decision on health should be based on need and not on the ability to pay, and I condemn the member for Dickson for his stance on this issue.
No comments