Kerry Rea (Bonner, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Why are changes to the Medicare levy surcharge thresholds necessary and is there opposition to these changes?

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for her question. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition denied 330,000 Australians tax cuts worth up to $1,500 for many families. Shame!

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Turnbull interjecting

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Leader of the Opposition does not have the call.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today we introduced a new bill to the House, with a clear message for the Leader of the Opposition. He needs to be able to look those 330,000 Australians in the eye and explain why he refuses to support a tax cut for them. He needs to be able to do that. I have been giving a lot of thought to why it is that the Liberal Party is so doggedly hanging on to the threshold of $50,000. After a lot of thought, I have decided that there are only three possible options. The first option is that that there was so much scientific justification for choosing that $50,000 threshold that the Liberal Party dare not change it—ever. The second option would be that the original thresholds were set in such a way that, although they were not relevant at the time they were introduced, they would somehow be magically relevant today when they are being defended by the Liberal Party so doggedly. The third option would be that the Liberal Party think that $50,000 is a high income and they do not think that people earning $50,000 deserve tax relief—something the Leader of the Opposition is trying to contest.

On option 1, is there any scientific justification for this threshold that they are so doggedly hanging onto? Members might not remember that I advised the House of some comments made by the then Minister for Health, Dr Michael Wooldridge, about how these thresholds were set. Just in case any members have forgotten, I might remind them. He said:

I think the numbers in the end were negotiated with Senator Harradine—it was over a bottle of Jameson’s whisky late at night …

So much for there being any scientific justification! The second option is that they were not relevant at the time that they were introduced but they were going to be magically relevant today. Dr Wooldridge gave us some assistance on this issue as well. He said:

We were happy to successfully get through 12 months, let alone worry about a problem in 10 years …

Of course, we know that the member for Dickson, having answered questions in the House on this matter, sat idly by as part of the government as the number of people hit by this tax slug doubled and then tripled—and he did nothing.

Option 3 is that the Liberals think $50,000 is a high income. Interestingly, Liberal Senator Simon Birmingham was asked exactly this question this morning. AAP reported that Senator Birmingham conceded that $50,000 was not a high salary. In fact, he said:

It is certainly not a high salary. Indeed, it is a working salary.

The members opposite are denying people on a working salary this sort of tax relief. Let me quote what Dale, a caller to 3AW this morning, said:

I’m one of those poor people, working hard, who has to take a second job to help for bills, and I can’t afford PHI in the first place. There is just not the money there.

He is pushing $51,000 a year, and he said: ‘I can’t afford it. The money is simply not there.’ All over Australia, people have a sinking feeling, like Dale, that the Liberal Party are not going to help working families. But the only sinking feeling that the Leader of the Opposition has is when he loads up his gondola with too much Italian luggage. I mean, really, this is ridiculous!

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The House will come to order!

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The thresholds that the Liberal Party are doggedly hanging on to are not logical, they are not designed with any thought of the consequences in 10 years time and now they are hitting families that even Liberal senators call ‘those on working salaries’. There is an easy question for the Leader of the Opposition to answer today: does he think people on $50,000 deserve a tax cut or not? The Leader of the Opposition can turn his back, but does he think people on $50,000 deserve a tax cut or not? He can vote on that here and he can provide tax cuts and relief to people earning $50,000. If he is not going to deliver that tax cut, he should jump on his gondola and head back to Venice.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is also to the Minister for Health and Ageing. I refer the minister to the Senate inquiry into the changes to the Medicare levy surcharge. The submission of private health insurer NIB states:

The proposal has seriously affected investor confidence in the private healthcare sector … The consequences can only be less investment in private sector services and infrastructure such as hospital beds. Of course this will only place further pressure on the public health system …

Will the minister guarantee that private health insurance premiums will not rise and that public hospital waiting lists will not grow as a result of the government’s changes to the Medicare levy?

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One clear thing that I can guarantee this House is that we will back public hospitals more than you ever did. Let us get that straight.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Dutton interjecting

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Dickson has asked his question.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Dickson also wants guarantees about premiums. Let us be honest about this. The member for Dickson, who has been in the job only for three days, already knows that it would be totally irresponsible for us to try to make some projections about premiums when private health insurance funds—

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, a point of order which goes to relevance: the minister has introduced a bill. There must have been modelling as to how much this bill will increase private health insurance—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Dickson will resume his seat. The minister is responding to the question, and I will listen carefully to her response.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The truth is that the member opposite does not want to have an answer from us on premiums, where private health insurers are the ones who make applications at the end of the year for the premiums that they are seeking. It is not the job of government to predict what that will be. It does not matter how loud the member for Dickson yells; the truth is that there is of course very commercially sensitive information—not that we are withholding it—that the private insurers themselves do not provide to government until the application round begins. I will say something else: I notice how readily the member opposite wants to quote the private health insurers. I think that the private health insurers’ views on premiums will be about as objective as the member for Bradfield’s view would be on the member for Wentworth. This is a ridiculous position.

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

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: this was a very serious question about the impact of government policy on public hospitals and private insurance premiums. If the minister cannot give a guarantee, she should pull the bill and apologise.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. It was not a point of order. The minister has finished.