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

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

The Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy Surcharge Thresholds) Bill (No. 2) 2008, which we are bringing back to the House this afternoon, will deliver immediate benefits to 250,000 Australians by adjusting the Medicare levy surcharge thresholds from their current levels of $50,000 for singles and $100,000 for couples and families, which was set by the Liberal government in 1997, to a change to $70,000 and $140,000 respectively. We know that there are many hundreds of thousands of Australians who will benefit from this bill being passed today by the Senate and, hopefully, now by the House—250,000 Australians in fact. These 250,000 Australians have not had the support of the Liberal Party for the tax relief that they will be gaining. There is an opportunity of course for them in the House now to show their support for this relief that will be provided, and vote for the measure. Very importantly, the amendments before the House also ensure that these thresholds will be indexed against wages in subsequent years, locking fairness into the system for the future so that the Medicare levy surcharge will never again become the tax trap that the Liberals created in 1997, and by failing to act over the following 10 years they increasingly exposed more and more people to this unfair tax.

I place on the record the government’s appreciation for the constructive manner in which the Australian Greens, Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding have conducted themselves during our negotiations over this legislation in the last few days. Of course, it will not be a surprise to this House that we did not agree on all matters but we have been able to reach a sensible compromise which I think is a tribute to all involved. In particular the Australian Greens were very concerned that the measure of indexation that be used be wages—something the government strongly supports as it is of course the way we ensure a tax trap is not created. They have also sought and we have happily granted an assurance about investing heavily in public hospitals, something very dear to our hearts, to make sure we keep the balance of our investment between private and public insurance right.

Senator Xenophon was concerned to ensure that the threshold was at a lower point. He had a view that it should be lower than that proposed in the bill that was before the Senate and has asked that we agree to a referral to the Productivity Commission with, I think, a legitimate request on his behalf to get more information in the public arena, enabling the public to be able to compare and contrast public and private services and the cost of those services. We have explained, and I know Senator Xenophon has noted, that much of this work is being undertaken through the COAG process in terms of the public side of this debate, and we have made that clear to and been engaged in discussions with the private providers as well. So this is something that we will work on, noting that the other important work of COAG needs to be undertaken first in order for the Productivity Commission to have some of the data that it might want.

I record the government’s appreciation for the constructive approach taken. It is of course part of our democracy that the Senate does not always have the same colour as the House and I think that it has been a constructive approach. Disappointingly for us the Liberals have been determined to maintain an opposition to this tax relief to hurt the surplus. In great contrast, the Greens and Independents have shown economic responsibility and we thank them for that. The Liberals approach to this is about as relevant as the Medicare levy surcharge thresholds that they want to maintain.

Let me make it clear to the House—and it might assist those opposite, because they have been determined to ignore these figures—that two people on average incomes of $60,000 each will get a tax cut provided by this bill of $1,200, something that the Liberal Party have opposed. For singles earning between $50,000 and $70,000, it will be $500, $600 or $700—something that people dearly need in these difficult times. We also know that many other Australians will benefit from having a real choice about their health care. When budgets are tight Australians will be able to make real decisions about where they want to spend their money, without having fear of being hit by a tax penalty.

In opposing this bill—and I am sure we will hear more of this—the Liberal Party have feigned concern about the potential impact of this measure on public hospitals. They have feigned concern, because we know that it was the former Minister for Health and Ageing responsible for the previous negotiations who pulled $1 billion out of our public hospitals. He is here rolling his eyes again, showing his lack of interest and commitment to the public and their healthcare needs. I think it is a sad indictment when those opposite—(Time expired)

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

The opposition refuses point-blank to support bad legislation, and this is bad legislation. The minister talks quite dishonestly about a tax savings. If she wants to present a tax savings to the parliament for the Australian public, then increase the thresholds or decrease the tax rates—do it in the normal way—but do not pretend that this is about providing a tax cut to the Australian people. This is an ideological attack on private health insurance in this country. She talks about providing benefit to 250,000—the numbers change quite dramatically on a daily basis. She talks about providing tax cuts to a quarter of a million people. She neglects to remind the House and the Australian people that this will mean a hike in premiums for 10 million Australians who have private health insurance. For that the Rudd government should stand condemned. They should stand condemned because this is bad policy that is going to drive half a million people off private health and into the public health system, a system which is already at breaking point. To say to people, particularly older Australians who are on waiting lists around the country at the moment, that it is acceptable to push 500,000 more people onto waiting lists around the country is a disgrace by this Rudd government.

This is going to rip $2½ billion out of premiums out of the private health sector. That is going to have to be borne by somebody and it will be borne by those 10 million Australians who have private health insurance. None of these questions have been addressed or answered properly by this minister. When in question time today the minister was asked how much premiums would go up by as a result of this government action, she refused to answer. When this minister was asked in question time today exactly what cosy deals had been done with the states to compensate them for the extra burden on their waiting lists, she refused to answer that as well.

She provided advice yesterday to ABC radio that it was too difficult for Treasury to forecast how by much premiums were going to go up. How can you introduce public policy into this parliament that will affect 10 million Australians and not have the proper costings done by Treasury? That is why this minister and this Prime Minister stand condemned. That is why 10 million Australians are going to see an increase in their private health premiums, and it is why the public hospital system is going to be under greater stress right around the country. This Rudd government is managing health exactly the way in which state Labor has managed health for the last 10 years, and it is a disgrace. That is why we condemn this government. That is why we oppose these amendments and this bill.

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

Let us go absolutely directly to the issue—

Opposition Members:

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

It is not a matter for those opposite to make a decision about whether I want to continue to speak in this debate for longer.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

The Manager of Opposition Business has agreed to call off the division.

Yes.

The division is called off.

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

I inform the House that we have two more minutes before we will be having a division on this matter. In those two minutes, I want to inform the House that the shadow minister cannot continue to use absolutely false arguments to oppose this bill. He cannot say that thresholds changing will put premiums up when premiums went up every year under the previous government when the threshold was the same. That cannot be sustained. It is not logical. It is also not logical for the shadow minister to say that 500,000 people will stop taking out private health insurance and immediately go on to a waiting list for a public hospital. That is not how people’s illnesses occur. He knows it. What he is doing is using that to hide the fact that the Liberals are blocking a tax cut for 250,000 people. The Labor Party want to deliver that tax cut, and we intend to do so. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the House that the Speaker has been briefed in relation to the Senate amendments. The effect of some of the amendments would be to increase the number of persons subject to the surcharge tax above the number covered by the bills as passed by the House. I understand, however, that the burden would still fall on a smaller number than under the existing law. Therefore, the Speaker considers this not to be an occasion on which any objection should be taken on constitutional grounds.

Question put:

That the agreements be agreed to.