Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak after the member for Oxley in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2009 because I was going to talk about one of his illustrious predecessors in the seat of Oxley, the Hon. Bill Hayden, who actually introduced Medibank, which was a tremendous initiative many years ago. The member for Oxley went through in detail what the changes are and how they will assist those on low and middle incomes so that they do not get a tax burden which would otherwise be imposed upon them if we did not make this legislative change. The member for Oxley talked about the fact that this legislation before the House proposes to increase the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for individuals and families in line with movements in the CPI. That is fair and just in all the circumstances. In respect of the Medicare levy surcharge provisions, the low-income threshold is also going to be increased in line with increases in the CPI so that low-income family members will continue not to be subject to the Medicare levy surcharge.

Although this bill before the House receives bipartisan support, it was not always the case when it came to Medicare. Medicare was once described famously—or should I say infamously—by the former Liberal Prime Minister John Howard as a rort. In fact, those on the opposite side of this chamber—and in the chamber down the road in Old Parliament House—and in the Senate consistently opposed health reform in this country. That is the reality. The Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs and Assistant Treasurer said in his second reading speech on 28 May this year:

Those on low incomes are among the most vulnerable Australians—particularly amid this global recession—and the Rudd government is determined to make sure these Australians remain exempt from the Medicare levy.

The reality is that the coalition has always had a degree of ambivalence when it comes to health reform and has always had a degree of opposition when it comes to the universality of health care for all Australians. I have heard Medibank and Medicare described as universal in coverage, equitable in distribution of costs and administratively simple to manage—and those were the aspirations of it. But it is important for those who are listening to understand that when Labor governments bring in legislation that deals with universal health cover to help low- and middle-income families, and particularly legislation like this, we do not always receive bipartisan support from those who sit amongst the conservative establishment in this country.

The reality is that, when we first tried to bring in the kind of reform and change that would ensure that Australians universally received the kind of health care we expect and they expect in a decent and humane society, it was opposed steadfastly by the coalition. It was the Whitlam Labor government which brought forward a number of major initiatives with respect to health insurance. For example, the Health Insurance Bill 1973 was the main bill which established Medibank, and there were several accompanying bills. The Senate, controlled by those opposite, opposed it on three occasions—on 12 December 1973, 2 April 1974 and 18 July 1974. It took a double dissolution and a joint sitting of both houses on 7 August 1974, following that double dissolution, to ensure that we had Medibank in this country—which commenced on 1 July 1975. The Hon. Bill Hayden, the Minister for Social Security and the member for Oxley at the time, was the architect of Medibank. Medibank was the first step—a step that should not have been destroyed, gutted and nullified by the Fraser government. Bill Hayden deserves enormous credit for what he did in seeking to establish decent and humane health care across the country. He was opposed every step of the way by the coalition, the AMA and the medical establishment.

Former Liberal opposition leader Malcolm Fraser promised in the 1975 election to maintain Medibank, but he then opposed it and seemed, every step of the way, to do everything he possibly could to dismantle its universal and low-cost objectives. It took the election of a Labor government, the Hawke-Keating government, in 1983 to bring back that universality of care in Australia.

In February 1984, Medicare was introduced. The truth is that we do not always enjoy bipartisan support when it comes to healthcare reform in this country. We are seeing that in response to this budget. We have seen those opposite oppose so many changes in relation to health reform to make health care more just, equitable, efficient and cost-effective across the country. It is important for Australians who are listening to this speech to know that it is Labor governments who undertake health reform with certainty, with determination and with clarity.

The former health minister, Dr Neal Blewett, said in his second reading speech in September 1983 that the legislation to introduce Medicare was ‘a major social reform’ that would ‘embody a health insurance system that is simple, fair and affordable’. He also emphasised the ‘universality of cover’ as being ‘desirable from an equity point of view’ and ‘in terms of efficiency and reduced administrative costs’. That is Labor’s goal, Labor’s aspiration and Labor’s determination. We have always believed that providing health care to Australians is an article of faith.

We strongly believe that funding our school systems, both private and public, is crucial not just for the productivity, economic development and wealth of the country but for social inclusion, social justice and social equity. We also believe that people—working families, individuals, pensioners and those who are doing it tough, including people in my electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland—should have affordable health care. Mothers and fathers should not have to determine whether they can afford to take their children to a doctor or a private hospital. In our decent and humane society, parents should not have to choose whether they take their children to see a doctor, an allied health professional; feed and cloth their children; or allow their children to engage in recreation, sporting and cultural activities in our country. Parents should not have to make that choice.

We should in this place provide universal healthcare coverage. We should do everything we can to ensure that the Medicare system is fair and equitable. That is why we are passing this legislation, and I am pleased that the coalition has given us bipartisan support. Not always do they support low- and middle-income earners. The truth is that at times when in government the coalition took steps that ensured that it was tough for low-and middle-income earners. They always seem to be on the side of the AMA, the big health insurance companies and those pillars of the establishment that want to oppose universal healthcare coverage. That is the reality.

In my electorate, in Ipswich, in the Lockyer Valley and in the Fassifern Valley, people expect that if their children are sick they can get coverage and they can take their children to a doctor or a hospital. That is why one of the first acts of the Rudd government upon its election—putting $1.6 billion into the health system—was so warmly welcomed in my electorate. Reduction of elective surgery lists and supporting public hospitals are good Labor principles. This legislation is typical of a Labor government that wants to care for low- and middle-income earners. In the circumstances, I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context