Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2009. I note that the opposition will be supporting this bill. While the Liberal and National parties are supporting this bill and they say that it is just a procedural bill, which is correct, it also provides at its core a measure which is very important to low-income families, low-income individuals and those who are doing it toughest in the community.

There is no question that Labor is committed to Medicare as a philosophical approach to delivering universal health care to all Australians. Medicare is to ensure that the Australian community is confident that in this country at least we have a healthcare system which looks after everybody and that does that in the best and most efficient way that it can. I am and I know the Labor government is deeply committed to Medicare, as we are the architects of Medicare and because of what it provides to working people and everyone across the community. But we are also committed to private health care and private health insurance. Those two sectors combined provide for a very efficient system in Australia, which is the envy of the world.

I ask the opposition, the Liberal and National parties, to take a close look at the ways that in the past they have tried to damage or in some way get rid of Medicare. I know they would probably object to hearing that today, but that is the reality of what took place in the past. My view is that, on those issues, they have not changed. What changes is the rhetoric and what they put out to the community, but their ideology has not changed. So while this government remains committed not only to Medicare but also to private health insurance, to an efficient universal healthcare system which provides for all Australians, what we find on the other side at every opportunity is their opposition to any such good measures.

The Medicare levy low-income thresholds for individuals and families will be increased in line with movements in the CPI. This is very important in order to ensure that low-income families are not penalised for any increase in income they may have through a rise in the consumer price index. It is to make sure that those people are not dealt out of having this measure apply to them. The obvious point to make is that the higher the threshold for low-income earners the more people are eligible to actually have the Medicare levy not apply to them under these measures. This is great news for a whole range of individuals across the community, in particular pensioners, and it is in line with the whole range of commitments we have made to low-income people and pensioners across the community.

Similar amendments have been announced in previous budgets. We have heard from opposition speakers that, in terms of making these annual adjustments, this bill is in line with previous bills put to this parliament—except for one year where the CPI was actually negative and we therefore did not move to change it. I know that it will get the support of the other side.

As I said earlier, however, I have to note in this debate that I fought for many years in my community not only to save Medicare offices but to protect Medicare as an institution itself. For quite a long time there, it was the intent of the former government to actually destroy the Medicare that we know today. I do believe in progressive change, and I understand that we are moving away from the physical provision of Medicare offices to a more efficient system through Medicare provision points. That is the way of the future. I know that communities often do get upset about this if they do not quite fully understand. Whilst I would not advocate at any point that a community should lose a Medicare office—in fact, I would stand up in support of the retention of Medicare offices—I do understand that where new communities are developing, particularly in my electorate of Oxley which is a growing community, that with such communities we do need to have these access points. And we have done that. This government has delivered those access points for people in a whole range of growth areas to make sure they are not penalised in any particular way when getting either the Medicare gap or some other payment that they are entitled to receive. They can use the phone or go to a pharmacy or some other community point and get reimbursed through electronic funds transfer into their accounts. This government will continue to support Medicare access points, Medicare offices and the broader system itself.

This bill proposes, as I mentioned earlier, to increase the Medicare levy low-income threshold for individuals and for families and, in particular, the Medicare levy surcharge provisions themselves. The increases are to ensure that low-income individuals and families will not continue to be required to pay the Medicare levy or surcharge. It would be an unfair and undesired outcome if that were not the case. These increases are in line with movements in the consumer price index. The amendments will apply to 2008-09 and later income years.

Just as a matter of background, the bill amends the Medicare Levy Act 1986 to raise the Medicare levy low-income threshold amounts and phase-in limits for individuals and families and for pensioners below the age pension age. The bill also amends the A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Act 1999 to increase the Medicare levy surcharge low-income threshold as well. The increases in the thresholds and the phase-in limits are in line with increases in the consumer price index.

Medicare is partly funded by a levy on taxable income. I think everybody understands broadly how the system works and that they broadly understand its importance in terms of healthcare provision in this country. Medicare was first introduced in 1984. I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would remember it fondly—

See this speech in context