House debates

Tuesday, 14 February 2012

Bills

Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011, Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2011, Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge — Fringe Benefits) Bill 2011; Second Reading

12:16 pm

Photo of Laura SmythLaura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak in an important debate concerning the current health of our community and also the health of generations to come. The community will benefit enormously from the appropriate allocation of Australians' tax dollars, and the fairer private health insurance bills will achieve that by realigning the interests of ordinary Australians and making available money for important health reforms—money that is currently being tied up in private health insurance. In all of the policy initiatives of this government, in absolutely every policy reform that we have put in place since coming to office, we have been concerned to fix the inequities in our society and to provide for future generations. We see that right across the policy spectrum, from the changes we are putting in place through the minerals resource rent tax, which will see an increase in the superannuation available to ordinary Australian workers on their retirement by increasing superannuation contributions from nine to 12 per cent, to starting an important community discussion about and making plans for the national disability insurance scheme and putting in place important reforms such as paid parental leave. Through doing all of these things and so many more we are responding to problems currently in our system and providing for future generations.

This stands in stark contrast to those opposite, who simply oppose reform, who are not interested in dedicating appropriate resources to the needs of future generations. It is another example of a reluctance to see important change and progress. Contributing to the health needs of Australians through important reforms like the contribution of a significant amount—$2.2 billion—to mental health and dedicating funding to regional cancer centres are initiatives that Labor has embarked on and which the opposition has only seen fit to regard as wasteful spending on issues insignificant to the opportunities and lives of Australia people.

The bills before us are about bringing the greatest benefit from our health dollar to the most Australians that we possibly can. They will ensure a fairer distribution of benefits and in particular will ensure that those who are on lower incomes and who need the most assistance will be able to receive the best services from our health dollar. We are doing this because it is absolutely the right thing to do. The bills are estimated to save around $2.4 billion over three years. That is no small saving. From the things we have done so far people will understand that we have a very significant commitment to improving the health of all Australians, tackling things like mental health, ensuring that we put in place preventive health measures and ensuring that we respond to the health needs particularly of an increasingly ageing population.

The reforms being contemplated in these bills are about freeing up money that could be better used for treatments, hospital services and infrastructure—things like regional health, responding better to the needs of a population which is living longer and providing more money for things like children's health, dental health and mental health. These are all of the things that ordinary Australians who approach members of parliament are interested in ensuring for themselves and for their children. These are the things that the money recouped through these bills should be going to. Other programs can also be supported by the estimated $100 billion over approximately 40 years that will be available as a result of the measures in these bills.

Members opposite should bear those very significant figures in mind. They regularly call for additional funding for particular issues in their electorates, and they are certainly not shy about calling for that funding. But, at the same time, they do not ever manage to tell us where they anticipate deriving that funding from. We have regularly heard about their inability to make their figures add up, and we know about their $70 billion black hole. Members opposite often do not tell their electorates what it is that they oppose in health spending. While this government is embarking on endeavours like the reforms in these bills to make better use of the health dollar, those opposite often do not go back to their electorates and tell people what it is that they have actually opposed—that is, what we are trying to do to put in place better measures for Australians' health.

Comments

No comments