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
8:40 pm
Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Hansard source
Thank you. Labor has been trying to means test the public health insurance rebate for nearly three years. It represents a $2.4 billion boon to the budget. And here is the rub: a $2.4 billion boost to the budget bottom line. This is a win-win for Labor. Firstly, it gets to whack the aspirational, the successful, the so-called privileged, as the member for Corangamite called the middle class in his matter of public importance dissertation today. I am not sure how rusted on hardworking, blue-collar Labor families with two incomes just to pay the bills, with a mortgage, perhaps with three kids and rising power costs would react to being called privileged. But Labor has turned its back on these people. They are now the forgotten families. They are families who are tired of the party which actually once had a vision but which now does backroom, dodgy deals with the minority Greens and Independents just to stay in office, just to stay in power. There is nothing this government will not do or say or will not be to stay in office.
The other reason Labor is so keen to push this bill through is that it adds $2.4 billion to the Treasury coffers. For a government which is borrowing $100 million a day, which has a $38 billion deficit and a $200 billion debt, an extra $2.4 billion will be a welcome respite. In essence, the name of this bill is a misnomer—the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011. This is not fairness; this is class warfare by any other name. If and when this gets through, private schools will be the next to face the Labor budget blowtorch. And all for what? To hit and hurt aspirational working Australian families and taxpayers.
The amendment put forward by the Leader of the Opposition is commendable and appropriate:
That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
'this bill, and the related bills, not be proceeded with until after the Parliament has met in the 44th Parliament.'
In other words, we should put this off until after the next election, which cannot come soon enough. It is not just this side of the House saying this but people out in voter land, the Australian public. It is certainly people with private health insurance, those so-called aspirational families. That more than anything would be delivering fairness.
No comments