Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For you, Mr Speaker, we will hold back our enthusiasm tonight! My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recall his words of 30 April this year when he said:

... the Government’s agenda for the public service is to ensure a robust, evidence-based policy making process. Policy design and policy evaluation should be driven by analysis of all the available options, and not by ideology.

Given the Prime Minister’s commitment to open government and evidence based policy, will he provide the House with all departmental modelling and advice on the impact of his government’s changes to the Medicare surcharge?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for his question. When it comes to evidence based policy and taking proper advice from departments and sounding things out, those opposite should reflect on the lead-up to the decision by this country to participate in the invasion of Iraq, but let us leave that to one side.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You supported it.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Public Service departments were not consulted on a solemn decision to take the nation to war. The decision had already been taken politically and ideologically by members still present on the benches opposite.

On the question of the Medicare surcharge, when those opposite introduced the Medicare levy surcharge back in 1997 they indicated that $50,000 represented a high income. They said that that was their benchmark for a high income. Furthermore, in the period since then, despite multiple representations from the community at large to do something about the indexation of that figure, in budget after budget those opposite declined to do so—including the then Treasurer, who seems to have burst out of the blocks again this morning with some rolling commentary on the upcoming budget week, which I thought was an interesting development. By any person’s definition, $50,000 is not a high income today. Working families and working Australians are under financial pressure. Therefore, for those opposite to continue to argue that that represents an acceptable benchmark for the future is remarkable. We believe that this is necessary to provide some relief to working families under pressure. That is why we are proposing this measure, and we intend to implement it.