Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I feel fortunate indeed to have the opportunity to speak on this package of the bills, the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2009, the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2009 and the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Bill 2009. I am fortunate that I have the opportunity to represent every single person within the electorate of Pearce that will be affected by this package of legislation.

I recently conducted an electorate-wide survey that asked people which issues concerned them the most. The top priority for my electorate of Pearce was fixing up the hospital system. That was followed by ensuring that the government spends taxpayers’ money wisely. These are issues that I am sure rank highly with all people across Australia. Health is clearly a major issue for most families and most people and it is too often politicised. I think governments know that, if they get the politics of health wrong, it often spells political disaster. These bills are a clear example of how even the most ambiguous election promises on health mean nothing once the votes are counted. The Australian health system is the one area in which ideas should always prevail over ideology and good policy should always prevail over politics.

The package of bills before us is, in the government’s words, designed to make the private health insurance rebate and the Medicare levy surcharge scheme fairer. In essence, this is nothing more than a crude money-grabbing exercise by Treasury and Finance to pay for the reckless spending and gratuitous handouts, I am sorry to say. These bills will reduce the incentive to take out private health insurance but also increase the penalty for relying on Medicare and the public health system for many Australians. The political spin used to sell this new policy is based, as my colleague the member for Kalgoorlie so eloquently put it, on ‘Robin Hood economics’. We have heard that this measure will cost those that can afford it to help those who cannot. There seems to be something fundamentally wrong with that proposition, as I hope to outline in this speech on the legislation tonight.

To take from the rich and give to the poor in principle may have some appeal to some people, and obviously it does to the government, but our health system, as I said, is too important to be the subject of political spin. We need to look beyond that to the objective facts and to logic and reason. The fact is that this package of bills is about taking from each and every individual, whether they be rich or poor, to give to an ailing federal budget. Let us be absolutely clear: every Australian, regardless of their wealth and regardless of whether they have private health insurance, will be robbed by this new policy. So let us get beyond the rhetoric and let us look at the fact. It becomes patently clear to most people that this is not a system designed to be fair, it is not designed to fulfil an election promise to fix up the public hospital system and it most certainly is not a logical scheme that puts good policy over good politics.

Over 11.1 million Australians currently have private health insurance. Depending on their income and age, these people ordinarily receive a rebate on their insurance as an incentive for them to continue not to use the public health system. According to government figures, 1.7 million Australians will be affected by this new scheme which cuts the rebate, although industry analysis shows the figure will be closer to 2.4 million Australians. Using the government figures, 1.7 million have private health insurance and earn over $75,000 and, logically, this means that 9.4 million people have health insurance and could hardly be classified as wealthy. In fact, these figures mean that about 85 per cent of people with private health insurance do not earn enough to be directly affected by this scheme. In short, while Australians who earn less than $75,000 may not be directly affected—their rebate will not be changed—there can be no doubt that this scheme will have a massive effect on their hip pocket. That is why, when the government says that the scheme will affect only the very wealthy who can afford the extra burden, its statement flies directly in the face of the facts, for every Australian that retains their private health insurance will be hit by this scheme as, inevitably, the premiums that they pay will rise considerably.

There has been a 4.4 per cent increase in the number of young Australians joining private health insurance within the last year. If younger and healthier people drop out of private health insurance because of reduced incentives for them to participate, it then leaves the elderly, the chronically ill and the more vulnerable people in our community to pay. Currently, there are over one million Australians who earn less than $26,000 who still put money aside to pay for private health insurance. Not only do they prove that private health insurance is not just for the rich but also they show that, for many, having the choice of doctors and hospitals and the reassurance of private health insurance is worth the sacrifice. When I am out in the electorate, pensioners often discuss this issue with me and they say they are willing to pay for private health insurance because their health care is the one area that they are simply not prepared to sacrifice and they want to have a choice in the kind of health care that they need. I have met many pensioners who have had to wait for months and months, often in considerable pain, to have joint replacements, particularly knee and hip replacements. So many people do make sacrifices to ensure that, when they need elective surgery, they can get it in a timely manner and also so that they can have a choice about who provides their healthcare services. These are not wealthy people. Most are, as I said, elderly people who want the peace of mind that private health insurance brings. They make many sacrifices to be able to pay for it.

The Australian Health Insurance Association has said that every single one of the more than 11 million Australians with private health insurance will have to pay more for their private health insurance as a direct result of this policy. Clearly, it is not just the rich that will be affected. I know that sometimes people scoff at the statements from the private insurance industry. They say, ‘Well, of course, they are protecting their back, they are protecting their income stream,’ but it does not take a lot of grey matter to actually figure out that if you have people exiting—particularly, as I said, young people—this will have a dramatic effect on the cost of health insurance premiums. Because there are fewer people in the system the premium is likely to go up.

I think it is a pity that this policy is forged from an ideological position rather than being what is best for Australian people. For the 85 per cent of people that are insured and will have to pay more for their insurance, despite not earning over $75,000, they will have one choice to make: they could continue being insured and pay more or they could drop out of insurance and move to rely on the public health system. Michael Roff, CEO of the Australian Private Hospitals Association, has said:

The current system works well to provide an appropriate balance between public and private healthcare. Even the Government concedes these new measures will lead to thousands of Australians dropping out of private health insurance and as a result, put more pressure on our already overstretched public hospitals. Destabilising the current balance between public and private is not just bad policy; it is ultimately unsustainable and therefore irresponsible.

I say ‘Hear, hear’ to that. As I said, this seems to me to be a policy forged in ideology, because it will not be so difficult for the government in perhaps a year’s time or so to come into this place and say, ‘The whole system is collapsing, so let’s nationalise the health system in Australia.’ I think a lot of Australians can actually see through that, and that is why in the lead-up to the election the Prime Minister made a promise not to do what this legislation is now going to allow. He also made promises to fix the public hospital system. Further, Dr Armitage of the Australian Health Insurance Association has said:

… while higher premiums put greater pressure on every person privately insured, particularly those one million Australians with private cover who reside in households with an annual income of less than $26,000, longer hospital waiting lists affect the health of every Australia.

So who exactly is this measure aimed at helping? It clearly is not any of the 11.1 million Australians with private insurance. It is also clear that this will not benefit the uninsured Australians, who will now find themselves lining up in ever increasing numbers to access the public health system.

The government paints a simple dichotomy, where those with insurance are rich and those without are poor. We know from the figures discussed that this is simply not the case, and we know that those who do not have private health insurance are not going to be assisted. In fact, the already ailing public health system on which they rely is going to be placed under greater pressure. This goes for those who deliver the health services to the public. The Australian Medical Association have said:

… we aren’t happy about the government’s broken promise on the 30% private health insurance rebate.

I think many Australians would say ‘Hear, hear’ to that. They feel betrayed, and so they should. The Australian Medical Association sees this as a measure to take money out of health. I need not remind the House that this measure comes from the same government who promised, as I said, reform in the public hospital system and that if they could not reform the system with the states, they would take it over. Not only have they broken their promise on removing the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate; there was a lot of rhetoric before the election and absolutely nothing happening on the reform of the hospital system. There has certainly been no indication that the federal government is moving to take over the system, despite the fact that in my electorate the hospital system comes up as the number one concern of my constituents. We had over 2½ thousand responses to the electorate wide survey, and we are continuing to get those coming into my office. This is what has clearly come out as the number one priority issue.

So, not only does this scheme fly in the face of reason; it also flies directly in the fact of election promises and assurances. As recently as 24 February 2009—just earlier this year—the health minister publicly assured Australians that there would be no changes to the private health insurance rebate. This was either blatantly dishonest—and I don’t believe that, because I have not found that the minister for health engages in blatantly dishonest conduct—or, I can only assume, the government, having thrown a lot of cash around the community gratuitously, now have grave concerns about the biggest budget deficit in Australia’s history. They need to claw back the large amounts of cash that they have handed out. If the health system is to be guided by sound policy and not politics, there are other options. The most rational of those options is one that was recommended by the Leader of the Opposition: to increase tobacco excise.

I have heard the Minister for Health and Ageing—and I support the minister in this—speak on the determination of the government to try to ensure that health problems are prevented. I have heard the minister speak on this on many occasions. As I say, it is totally supportable. But you have to wonder again about the genuineness of those statements when there is a solution put forward by the Leader of the Opposition to raise the additional funds. We understand there are problems now with the budget, but the money required for the health portfolio could much more effectively be raised by increasing tobacco excise. That would more than cover the savings expected to be delivered by this particular package of bills. So it is very difficult to reconcile the rhetoric from the reality.

If the tax on each cigarette was increased by just 3c, which equates to about a 12.5 per cent increase in tax, the government could raise about $2.2 billion in the budget forward estimates over four years. While these figures have been skewed by those opposite, the figures do speak for themselves. The best policies of all are those that create a win-win situation. Not only would increasing the cigarette excise bring in additional revenue, so the lose-lose situation of altering the private health insurance rebate could be avoided, but it would also offer the additional benefit of discouraging smoking across the population. I was listening this morning to a radio broadcast. Some commentators were saying that there is a clear link to the cost of cigarettes and the ability to reduce the number of people who smoke them. It is not the only part of the story—it would be dishonest to portray it as such—but it definitely is one factor that might discourage people from taking up or continuing that habit. As I said, for a government whose rhetoric has been about preventative health, one is at a loss to really understand why this measure would not be adopted. Dr Lyn Roberts of the Heart Foundation noted recently—and I think I heard Lyn Roberts speaking on radio this morning:

Price increases are one of the most effective best ways of encouraging smokers to quit as well as deterring young people from starting.

A very important part of this suggestion is that we would have a greater chance of deterring young people from ever starting cigarette smoking if the cost were a bit higher.

Again the evidence is clear. This is not about politics; this is simply about bringing the best possible policy initiatives. I have no doubt that there is universal agreement within the House that we must act upon any opportunity to reduce the rate of tobacco consumption in Australia. Quit Australia has said:

There is absolutely no doubt that increasing cigarette prices will save thousands of lives that otherwise would be lost to the devastating harms of tobacco. Research consistently shows increases in the real price of cigarettes are crucial to reducing smoking rates.

This to me is very desirable because I saw a dear friend pass away from the effects of smoking, from lung cancer, earlier this year. It is devastating. So many people prematurely lose their life or their quality of life because of this dreadful habit.

The time for playing politics over health has well and truly passed. It is no longer acceptable that governments of any persuasion put their ideology ahead of funding and finding practical solutions. The government promised the Australian electorate that they would deliver real improvements in the public health system, particularly in public hospitals, but what we have seen is not just a long list of shattered promises but the continual use of politics and ideology over sound policy. From my point of view—and, more importantly, from the point of view of the people of the electorate of Pearce—this is totally unacceptable.

When we look at the facts behind the proposed scheme and we look at the reality behind the rhetoric, it is clear that this is fairly crude politics and the cost of all of this will ultimately fall on the shoulders of each and every Australian. Seventy-five per cent of people in my electorate have private health insurance, but 100 per cent of my electorate will suffer the consequences of this ill thought out and ideologically driven scheme. One hundred per cent of Australians will pay the price for this poorly drafted legislation and policy, which seems to be driven purely by the ideological position of the Australian Labor Party. I think the end point will be to show that the private health insurance system has failed and, therefore, they can then move to nationalising medicine.

Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2009, the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2009 and the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Bill 2009. At the outset I must say that I do not accept that what the government is proposing is fair in any sense of the word. These three bills propose changes to various acts in order to implement a 2009-10 budget initiative that changes private health insurance incentives and penalties.

The government has proposed a number of changes to private health insurance in this budget that are intended, it says, to make private health insurance more sustainable. Some of the proposed measures include the removal or reduction of the private health insurance rebate for higher income earners who have private health cover. At the same time the Medicare levy surcharge will be increased for those who do not purchase private cover. Medibank Private will be changed from a not-for-profit to a for-profit insurer and regulatory changes will be made that affect how private health insurers can utilise surpluses.

From July 2010 three new tiers to the private health insurance rebate will be introduced. These will result in higher income earners—singles with incomes over $75,000 and couples with incomes over $150,000—progressively receiving a lower rebate. Once a single has an income over $120,000 and couples have an income over $240,000 the rebate will be abolished. At the same time the government will progressively increase the Medicare levy surcharge, a financial penalty applied only to high-income earners who decline to take out private health insurance. As a result of these changes to the private health insurance rebate some 41,865 residents in the Hume electorate with private health cover will pay a heavy price for the Rudd Labor government’s sustained attack on private health insurance. This represents 46 per cent of people aged over 18 in the Hume electorate. These ordinary Australians will be faced with higher insurance premiums after the Prime Minister broke his election promise not to change health insurance rebates, and slashed them savagely in the budget.

The dismantling of the 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance premiums will have an immediate impact on at least 1.7 million Australians or 10 per cent of the population. The Prime Minister, not surprisingly, was dishonest with the Australian people. He promised again and again that he would not touch the rebate for private health insurance. In a letter to the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Health Insurance Association, Dr Michael Armitage, dated 20 November 2007 Kevin Rudd, the then opposition leader, said:

Dear Dr Armitage,

Thank you for your letter of 29 October 2007 seeking clarification on Federal Labor’s policy regarding private health insurance.

Both my Shadow Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon, and I have made clear on many occasions this year that Federal Labor is committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates, including the 30 per cent general rebate and the 35 and 40 per rebates for older Australians.

Federal Labor will also maintain Lifetime Health Cover and the Medicare Levy Surcharge.

Labor will maintain the existing framework for regulating private health insurance, including the process for approval of premium increases. Zero per cent premium adjustment is not Labor policy.

I understand Nicola Roxon’s office has also confirmed with you that Federal Labor has no plans to require private health insurance funds to make equivalent payments to public hospitals for patients who elect to be treated as private patients.

I trust this allays your concerns. Federal Labor values its relationship with the private health insurance sector and we look forward to this continuing regardless of the election outcome on November 24.

Yours sincerely

Kevin Rudd

Federal Labor Leader

Member for Griffith

Do not believe what Kevin Rudd says; look at what he does. This election promise backflip will mean that most people will face an automatic increase in insurance premiums of up to 42 per cent for some, while those people who are forced to abandon their private health cover will face a tax increase through the Medicare surcharge levy of up to 50 per cent. Every Australian will eventually pay the price for the Rudd government’s reckless spending, because these budget changes mean that people will drop out of private health cover and join the queues of people waiting for treatment in public hospitals, while those who keep insurance will have to pay more.

The opposition will oppose the changes to the private health insurance rebate. We propose that the government should retain the rebate in its current form and instead seek to realise equivalent savings by increasing the excise on tobacco products by 12.5 per cent, as announced by the Leader of the Opposition. The President of the Australian Medical Association, Dr Rosanna Capolingua, said that doctors were deeply concerned for the one million Australians expected to lose their job over the next few years as a result of the recession. She said:

Unemployment has a huge impact on health. The physical and emotional health needs of these Australians, and of their dependents and families, were ignored in the Budget and this needs to be fixed. Increasing the tax on tobacco and using that money for essential health services will help. We aren’t happy about the Government’s broken promise on the 30% Private Health Insurance Rebate. The AMA is never happy about money being taken out of health. This means strengthening our struggling public hospitals in preparation for longer queues.

The CEO of the Australian Private Hospital’s Association, Michael Roff, said:

Mr Turnbull’s statements on the rebates are a win-win for the health system. Under the Opposition’s plan, self reliance continues to be rewarded, choice is maintained and a balanced public/private healthcare is preserved. As the Australian population ages, the government needs to ensure there is a sustainable health system for everyone. They should be encouraging more people to meet their own health care costs and not to introduce impediments to them doing so. The changes to the system proposed by the Government are complex and confusing and discourage people from taking up private health insurance. By increasing the tobacco excise, there is no net cost to the Budget, and no one who is seriously concerned about the health of Australians and sustainability of our health system could oppose these measures. Tobacco is the leading cause of death in Australia and by increasing the excise on cigarettes, we could increase revenue and reduce pressure on hospitals in one foul swoop.

The budget also included an announcement that towards the end of 2009 the government will convert the status of Medibank Private from a not-for-profit health insurer to a for-profit health insurer, but will retain ownership in public hands. Medibank Private is Australia’s largest private health insurer, providing health insurance to around 3.2 million Australians. The government’s stated intentions are to improve the competitive neutrality between Medibank Private and its for-profit competitors by making Medibank Private liable to pay company tax and dividends, which will help drive future efficiency gains. As the payment of company tax and dividends is expected to be made to the Australian government, some have suggested that its change in status will make it a cash cow for the government. Although listed as a revenue measure in the budget papers, the government has not released estimates of the savings expected from the measures due to commercial sensitivities.

This measure has attracted much less commentary than the changes to the private health insurance rebate, but some pertinent issues have been raised. Some have pointed to the debate that ensued when the former Howard government announced its intention to sell Medibank Private. At that time, questions were raised over the right to ownership of Medibank Private’s assets. Although the budget measure does not propose proceeding to a sale of Medibank Private, debate over the ownership of assets and rights of policy holders may yet emerge. Further, it has been argued that changing the status of Medibank Private from not-for-profit to for-profit may not be straightforward and may be more complex than simply changing its constitution to allow for this.

The government has also announced that it intends to make legislative changes that would allow health insurers to spend surplus capital to fund the provision of sporting and recreational activities and community based health promotion activities. Under current arrangements, the assets of not-for-profit health insurers can only be used to meet liabilities, such as the payment of benefits for complying health insurance products or other expenses, or to make certain investments. Health insurers that operate on a for-profit basis do not have the same restrictions on their surplus capital. Notwithstanding prudential solvency requirements, they are free to allocate their profits where they choose.

There are discrepancies appearing regarding the financial implications of the introduction of this bill. As I have already alluded to, the opposition’s proposal has a no net cost effect on the budget. The estimates provided in the explanatory notes to this bill differ from the estimates provided in the budget. The budget estimates show lower savings, $580.2 million and $605.8 million for the forward years 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. The explanatory memorandum estimates savings of $650.2 million and $680.8 million respectively, a discrepancy of some $150 million.

Labor’s rebate means test is bad—an idealogically driven policy dressed up as Robin Hood politics. It breaks a rolled gold written and personally signed promise that Kevin Rudd made just prior to the 2007 election. The changes to the private health insurance rebates are just the latest phase in Labor’s unrelenting war against private health insurance. Labor hates private health insurance. The coalition introduced an open-ended private health insurance rebate because for every rebated dollar, a privately insured person contributes more to our health system as a whole. The coalition believes in the right of all Australians to take charge of their own health needs and plan for the future. We have always worked to deliver incentives to promote the uptake of private health insurance and take the pressures off Medicare.

The introduction of the measures proposed in these bills will ultimately cause people to drop out of private health funds because they will no longer be able to afford the much higher premium increases, and that will restart the catastrophic premium membership death spiral of the 1980s and 1990s, when Labor almost wiped out the private health system. I condemn the government for its idealistic attack on private health insurance and I damn them for what they are doing to our great country.

I take the opportunity to put on record in the House quotes from the government over a period of time:

The clash between public and private in the health sector is an old one that has had its day. More importantly, Labor is committed to making sure both our public and private systems can work together for the benefit of the community, and that they are of world class standard.

That was Nicola Roxon, shadow minister for health, 7 April 2007.

On many occasions for many months, Federal Labor has made it crystal clear that we are committed to retaining all of the existing Private Health Insurance rebates, including the 30 per cent general rebate and the 35 and 40 per cent rebates for older Australians. … The Liberals continue to try to scare people into thinking Labor will take away the rebates. This is absolutely untrue.

That was Nicola Roxon, shadow minister for health in a media release on 26 September 2007.

The private health insurance rebate remains unchanged and will remain unchanged.

That was Kevin Rudd in the Australian on 25 February 2008.

We continue to support the 30 per cent, 35 per cent and 40 per cent rebate for those Australians who choose to take out private health insurance.

That was Nicola Roxon, Minister for Health and Ageing on Macquarie Radio Network on 18 May 2008.

Private health insurance consumers will still be able to claim the 30 to 40 per cent rebate, and the lifetime health cover incentives will remain in place.

That was Nicola Roxon, Minister for Health and Ageing in a speech to the Australian Health Insurance Association annual conference on 8 October 2008.

‘The government is firmly committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates,’ Ms Roxon told the Age.

Reported in the Age on 24 February 2009. They are classic examples of the spin the Australian people have been brainwashed into believing. Hopefully, the Australian public are starting to wake up to this glib Prime Minister, who has no care or concern about what he is doing to future generations of Australians nor, more importantly, for what he is doing to the health system in this country. He stands condemned for it and I hope the Australian people at the next federal election send a very strong message to both the current Prime Minister and the Australian Labor Party that we will not tolerate your ideological nonsense and we will not tolerate you sending this country down the drain of economic disaster. I thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate tonight.

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

I just remind the member of the use of the word ‘you’.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the previous speaker, the member for Hume, for his comments, which are always to the point and relate some of the hypocrisy that we have seen from the government on health insurance. It lays bare the many—I was going to say ‘lies’ but I am not sure that is parliamentary.

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

No, you are not allowed—that is not parliamentary!

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It lays bare many of the false assertions made by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health and Ageing about their treatment of private health insurance, were they to be elected. As we know, the truth is far from what was said by the current Prime Minister and health minister prior to them being sworn in, when they occupied this side of this House.

As we know, the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2009 and related bills amend various acts to give effect to the measure to introduce three new private health insurance incentive tiers. We know this means that for singles and couples there will be an increase in their premiums. Singles earning between $75,001 and $90,000 and couples and families earning between $150,001 and $180,000 will receive a 20 per cent rebate if they are aged up to 65 years. Singles earning between $90,001 and $120,000 and couples and families earning between $180,001 and $240,000 will receive just a 10 per cent rebate if they are aged up to 65 years. Of course, singles and families earning above these thresholds will receive no rebate at all. The bills also increase the rate of the Medicare levy surcharge that certain taxpayers will be liable for if they do not take out private health insurance.

These changes significantly alter the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate introduced by the coalition. The purpose of that rebate was to encourage people to take out private health insurance, thereby reducing the pressure on the public hospital system. The coalition introduced an open-ended private health insurance rebate because every dollar rebated was matched, not once, but twice, by the privately insured person who contributes towards the health system as a whole.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not one to often reminisce in this House but when you and I came to this chamber in 1998 and I sat next to a gentleman called David Jull, I asked my first question in this House on private health insurance. I asked the Prime Minister to inform the House of any proposals which would benefit the 20,000 people in my electorate of Groom, who were then covered by private health insurance and would therefore receive the Private Health Insurance Incentive Scheme. I asked:

Will these proposals also benefit people who are not eligible for the Private Health Insurance Incentive Scheme but who have private health insurance?

That was an extraordinarily eloquent question put together by a freshman to this House! At no stage was I given much assistance by many. The response to that question is far more serious. What the answer from the Prime Minister outlined was that, then, there were 20,000 people in my electorate who had private health insurance and that around 45,000 people would in fact benefit from the incentive scheme. The Prime Minister went on to highlight the fact that:

There are literally tens of thousands, indeed, hundreds of thousands of Australians, who scrimp and save to give themselves the security of private health insurance. They are entitled to a greater reward than the insult they receive from those who sit opposite—

referring then to the Labor Party who sat behind me. The Prime Minister went on to say:

The enemies of private health insurance are the members of the Australian Labor Party.

This was 1998 but was not the first time that was said. It was in fact said previously by someone we all know, or some of my vintage certainly know, and at times some watched what he said because he is, quite frankly, far too honest for his own good, in this regard anyway. That person was a man by the name of Senator Graham Richardson, a Labor senator and minister, and he was a Labor health minister, if I recall correctly. It is interesting as I quote from the answer to my eloquent question what the Prime Minister recalled, as he in fact quoted what Senator Graham Richardson had said before the government moved to act on this incentive back in 1998:

On Labor’s side, of course, they simply do not want to acknowledge that private health care matters. There is an ideological bent here that says, ‘Medicare is perfect,’ which is ridiculous. ‘Therefore, it cannot be changed,’ which is also ridiculous. ‘Therefore, nothing should be done about private health’—

Great stuff but Senator Richardson goes on to say—

… which is also ridiculous because the one thing they—

the Labor Party—

do not want to acknowledge is that private health insurance matters. What they do not want to acknowledge is that as these people are dropping out of private health insurance they are simply queuing up in the public health system and have to be looked after.

The reality is that in 1998 the then Howard government moved to address two issues. It moved to provide an incentive for people to privately insure and to make a significant contribution to their health costs on the basis that it knew that if we did not do so the public health system would never survive. What we are seeing now as Senator Richardson predicted so aptly in that candid answer—I suspect after he left the Senate—is that the Labor Party are ideologically opposed to private health insurance, they are ideologically opposed to people who want to look after themselves and they are oblivious to the consequences of a fall in private health insurance.

Almost 12 years later, we are now seeing that spectre revisited. The changes proposed by the current government are purely and simply a broken promise, and as the Prime Minister and health minister have repeatedly promised that they would not touch private health insurance, that is seen to be simply not true. They made the promise in the lead-up to the election and repeated it when in government. As recently as February this year the health minister stated in the Age newspaper:

The Government is firmly committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates.

Even the most fair minded person would know that for what it is. The reality is that that promise has been broken, that that promise has been revealed as expendable, and in the face of record debt that the Rudd government has incurred through its reckless cash splash, it reverts to its old type and attacks those who help themselves. These bills are entirely a consequence of bad financial management by the Rudd Labor government coupled with blind ideology. The people of Australia took the Prime Minister on faith, faith that has now been traded in as the government tries desperately to hide the consequences of its poor economic management and its reckless spending. Australians are now paying the price for that recklessness with higher health costs.

Eighteen months ago this country had no debt and cash in the bank. Now we think we have, depending on which day it is and whether it is the Prime Minister or the Treasurer giving the answer, somewhere between $300 billion and $315 billion worth of debt, and that is assuming that they are telling us the whole story. If they are not, the Australian people will hold them to account. The Australian people will hold them to account if it turns out that they need another $40 billion for broadband and another $40 billion for road and rail infrastructure and another $26 billion for the Rudd bank. As a result of this unprecedented debt, the Rudd Labor government is now going to trash the real achievements that have been made in health over the last decade.

Let us go to some statistics. Some 9½ million Australians are covered by private health insurance. That is 45 per cent of the population. Madam Deputy Speaker Burke, you would be interested to know that in my electorate, as a consequence of the incentive introduced by the government when you and I came into this place, private health insurance is no longer held by 20,000 voting people but by 52,984 voting people. That has to be a success by any measure. The total number of persons covered in my electorate as a result of that incentive, the same incentive that this government is now trashing, now stands at 76,196.

We are seeing sheer desperation on the part of the government to find savings to fund their debt and their deficit due to their lack of control over their spending. The sad consequence of that is that they will unravel 10 years of work whereby we were able, in the case of my electorate, to double the number of people who were taking charge of their own health costs and spending their own money to ensure that they receive the health care they need. As we heard from former Senator Richardson, it appears the Prime Minister, under the same ideology, is now punishing the people who have elected to take out private health cover as part of Labor’s innate hatred of the private health insurance industry. This poorly considered, ideologically driven policy, which the Prime Minister attempted to describe as being like Robin Hood, sees a million Australians with private health insurance living in households with annual incomes of under $26,000 being affected by the change.

The inevitable outcome of the government’s broken promises and reckless spending will be that private health insurance premiums will be driven up. People will drop out of the private health cover system and Australia’s already pressured public health system will face even more stress. While the government claims 25,000 people are likely to drop out of private health cover because of these bills, this figure is at odds with the industry’s. Quite frankly, when I have to choose between the figures that I see daily put up by those on the opposite side and the figures of those in the industry, who have a working knowledge of this matter, I am always inclined to believe the industry. Those in the industry know—because they have experienced this for over a decade—and are expecting the 25,000 figure to be out by a factor of 10. The health insurance industry predicts that almost 250,000 people are likely to drop out of private health cover. On top of that, another 730,000 are likely to downgrade their hospital cover and 775,000 are likely to drop their ancillary cover. Australians will then be paying the price of this government’s sustained attack on health insurance.

The Rudd government’s determination to attack private health insurance will see people drop out simply because they cannot afford the higher premium increases. This will restart the catastrophic premium membership debt spiral of the 1980s and 1990s. It took the Howard government to rectify what Labor had done in almost wiping out private health insurance. The coalition believes in the right of all Australians to take charge of their own healthcare needs and plan for the future. We have always worked hard to deliver the incentives to promote the uptake of private health insurance and take the pressure off Medicare. Australians deserve a strong and well-balanced health system that supports Medicare as a cornerstone and also encourages self-reliance. The Rudd government is determined to undermine that system and those aspirations.

In conclusion, I say that, in opposing this measure, the coalition realises that there needs to be some offset in ensuring that the government gets whatever money it can to address, as best it can, its enormous debt and deficit, and we have proposed an excise on tobacco instead. Given all the things that I have done in my life, particularly all the crazy things that I have done in my life as one does occasionally when one is young, I have only one regret: that I smoked. Here we have a measure that will not only provide the government with money but may prevent people from smoking. There is no doubt that there is a direct correlation between increasing the price of cigarettes and encouraging people to give them up. There are a whole heap of other things that you need to do to encourage people to give up—and I know as I am expert. I ‘gave up’ four times. On the fourth time I was successful. Increasing the price of cigarettes by only 3c will give the government the money it so desperately needs while providing an added incentive, an added reason, for people to give up cigarettes.

I know those on the other side try to argue that in fact this would not return enough money to the government coffers. I assure those who sit opposite, and the Treasurer himself, that the Treasury’s own figures show that over the life of the forward estimates such an increase in cigarette excise would more than cover the cost of retaining the private health insurance rebate in its current form. There is also the added benefit of discouraging people from smoking. Not only will they live longer but they will place less pressure on the health system, which, as a result of this bill and related bills, is well and truly going to be stretched far beyond how it is already stretched now. The Prime Minister needs to address the real issues in Australia. Taking money from people who want to be self-reliant and make their contribution to ensuring their health outcomes, so taking pressure off the public health system, is not a sure-fire way to make this country a better place. Those who sit opposite should reflect on what they are going to achieve with these bills and not continue this relentless attack on private health insurance. I oppose these bills.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2009 and related bills although, like previous speakers on our side of the House, I take objection to the word ‘fairer’ being used in the titles. For anyone who doubts that there are two health systems in this country—a first class and a second class system—I invite them to attend the outpatients or emergency ward of any Sydney public hospital on a busy Friday or Saturday night or talk to anyone who has been on the waiting list to have orthopaedics or ear, nose and throat surgery in New South Wales and who has been waiting longer than 12 months, often suffering considerable pain in the process.

I represent a rural electorate in a state that has a health system that is deteriorating rapidly every day—a health system in crisis. And in viewing these bills my concern is not just for the private health insured citizens that I represent but also for the public patients—those who cannot afford private health insurance but who will wear the costs, indirectly, of these changes by the government.

Over 11 million Australians are now covered by private health insurance. More than 1.8 million Australians with private hospital cover are aged between 20 and 35 years and private health insurance funds pay for 56 per cent of surgical procedures performed in Australia, including 55 per cent of major procedures for malignant breast conditions, 55 per cent of chemotherapy treatment, 63 per cent of major joint replacements and 70 per cent of same-day mental health procedures.

In my electorate of Farrer, 48 per cent of voters have private health insurance but 70.1 per cent of all of the constituents I represent—obviously that covers family members and those who are not on the electoral roll—are covered with private health insurance, 65 per cent are covered with hospital treatment insurance and 62.5 per cent are covered with general treatment insurance. But now I believe that all Australians, including my constituents, will pay more for their health care because of the Rudd government’s changes to private health insurance—because the changes will affect not just the Australians who are privately insured, but all Australians.

Insured Australians who earn over $75,000 will pay more because of the cut to private health insurance rebates, and if they drop out all together they will still pay more, due to an increased Medicare levy surcharge. Insured Australians who earn under $75,000 will pay more because of increased premiums due to younger and healthier people dropping out. Uninsured Australians will be waiting longer in the public hospital queues for essential treatment because of the influx of more Australians into a public health system already under extreme pressure. According to the government’s own figures these changes will affect 1.7 million Australian adults. Industry analysis shows that the changes will affect over 2.4 million Australians in total.

As we know, private health insurance helps fund the purchase of private health and medical services, allowing individuals to choose their own doctors and sometimes their own health services, and access those more quickly. While Medicare provides for free treatment in public hospitals, patients are not able to choose their own doctors and may have to go on a waiting list for their treatment. Medicare also subsidises the cost of medical services provided in a private hospital—for example, it covers 75 per cent of the scheduled fee for a private patient in a private hospital but the patient will be liable for any gap between the amount Medicare reimburses and what the doctor charges. Private health insurance can help fund this gap and can also be used to help pay for ancillary services not normally covered by Medicare, such as dental treatment and chiropractic, physiotherapy, prosthesis or optical services.

When Medicare was first introduced in 1984 membership of private health insurance funds began to fall so that by 1998 only 30 per cent of the population was covered. And the former government sought to reverse this trend when it introduced a suite of measures designed to encourage private health insurance uptake. Those measures worked, because since their introduction private health insurance coverage has climbed to a high of 44.6 per cent of the population, and that figure continues to rise. The important thing about those changes—and I supported them at the time—was that by encouraging younger people to get into private health insurance when they needed hospitals and doctors less, the system was supported much more than it would otherwise have been and the cost of health, which is enormous—the biggest cost in any budget is health—was spread more evenly across more people over a longer period of time. I think these changes will skew that coverage and result in a smaller proportion of people paying more for health services that are below par.

I would like to quote Dr Capolingua’s farewell presidential address. She was, as we know, the president of the AMA and resigned just recently. She has been quite hard on the present changes and I believe that she speaks with a passion that needs to be introduced into this debate. She said in her address:

I cannot think of another example of a government deliberately misinforming the community about an entire profession.

We do devote our lives to helping patients, only to be actively attacked and cast as the black hats, the villains in the health debate, by our own elected government representatives.

These elected representatives presented a major challenge early in this Presidency—we were faced with a popular, energetic, and confident new government that was hell bent on fundamental health reform—but reform that is based on breaking the important role of the doctor in patient care in order, perhaps to appease political promises to other groups.

…            …            …

In the face of this major challenge; certainly the starkest faced by the Medical profession in a generation; there are some who counsel a softly-softly approach. The idea being that we shouldn’t criticise Government for fear of losing our place at the negotiating table.

Some believe we should stand mute in the face of a highly aggressive Government reform agenda that contradicts all of our training—all of our instincts about what is right for our patients.

Should we stand mute as government takes over medical training, and makes health standards subject to the workforce and political vagaries of the time?

Do we say nothing as government administrative officers gain open access to the private patient records of every person in this country?

Must we turn a blind eye to policy that makes our aged, or our sickest, or our rural Australians, second class citizens who don’t deserve the services of a doctor?

Certainly the AMA is on the record as being very much against these changes. They have said that changes to the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate mean many Australian singles and families will pay a lot more for health insurance. If you do not keep your private health insurance, you will be slugged with an increased Medicare levy surcharge. They get you both ways. The AMA also said:

We aren’t happy about the government’s broken promise on the 30% Private Health Insurance Rebate. The AMA is never happy about money being taken out of health.

In the Leader of the Opposition’s reply to the budget we proposed opportunities for the Prime Minister to find real savings and to expose the real motivation behind this cut to private health, which is an ideological position the government has taken. We proposed that savings from the changes to the private health insurance rebate could be achieved with increases in the excise on tobacco instead. One of the more cheeky responses to that was, ‘Well, the increase in the price of cigarettes will mean fewer people smoking and therefore the government of the day will get less excise,’ and I think that would be a fantastic result. We would have less pressure on our hospital systems as a result. There is no doubt that one of the single biggest disincentives to smoking is the price of cigarettes. Although many know they need to give up for their health, when you talk to people who have given up smoking they often say, ‘I just couldn’t afford it.’ I would like to quote Dr Lyn Roberts from the Heart Foundation, who said:

Price increases are one of the most effective best ways of encouraging smokers to quit as well as deterring young people from starting.

…            …            …

Evidence shows a 7.5 cents tax increase would prompt 130,000 Australian adults to quit and prevent 35,500 children from taking up smoking—

using their pocket money to buy cigarettes. So it is a measure that I believe all sides of politics must support and it is a perfect opportunity for this government to put right their changes to private health insurance and the resulting negative effect that will have on our public hospital system.

I mentioned the state of New South Wales, the state I represent, has a health service in crisis. Recently the head of the Greater Southern Area Health Service refused to be interviewed about cost-cutting measures, including voluntary redundancies and a four-day week for some of the staff. The annual report for 2007-08, which will tell it all in black and white, was due out in April but it is still not out. A spokesman says that there is a printing problem behind the delay.

Only yesterday the New South Wales government said the problem of hospitals not paying bills on time is being addressed. ‘Patient safety has not been put at risk.’ So they are mounting a rather desperate rearguard action, but documents obtained by the state opposition under FOI show that, at the end of March, 47,155 invoices had been underpaid for more than 45 days, totalling nearly $90 million. It is not acceptable that a state funded health service should have $90 million in outstanding payments to creditors—and it is not believable, if indeed that is the case, that patient services are not affected. We know that patient services in our regions are affected.

The New South Wales health minister cannot manage the finances of the hospital system and he should go. If these area health services administered health properly, they would actually have sufficient funds. For the health minister in New South Wales to say, ‘Outstanding bills were a problem, but steps are being taken to rectify it,’ and, ‘The budget is coming under control in each individual area health service, although some are doing better than others,’ says to me that he really is not even trying and he really is not making any genuine undertaking to the people of New South Wales that their health system is going to head back into the black.

In conclusion, the coalition does believe in the right of all Australians to take charge of their own healthcare needs and plan for their own future. We have always worked hard to deliver incentives to promote the uptake of private health insurance to take the pressure off Medicare. Eleven million Australians do choose to pay their own hard-earned money for private health insurance so that they can have a choice in their health care. It does not have to be one or the other, because we deserve a strong and well balanced health system that looks after each and every Australian.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak this evening on the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2009 and cognate bills.This is a very important debate on private health insurance and the government’s ideologically based approach to destroying the private health insurance industry. This is a policy that has been dressed up as Robin Hood, but in reality it is the first step down a path of destroying the private health system in Australia. I will deal with that in more detail later in the speech.

The 30 per cent rebate was a very wise policy move by the former government. It instituted one of its key promises in the 1996 election campaign, because it understood that if you could take pressure off the public health system by making the private health system more affordable for people, particularly young families and older people, you would indeed be making it better for those at the lower end who could not afford private health insurance.

We hear much from the other side that this is middle-class or high-end welfare, but what they simply fail to understand is that this policy actually helps more at the lower end than it does at the top end. It is also a very important policy to my electorate, the electorate of Mayo. According to figures I have received, in my electorate 85,000 people have private health insurance. According to the research I have, 60,886 of them are voters, but 85,000 are covered, which makes a percentage of 62 per cent, which is quite a high percentage, as I understand it, compared to other electorates. That is not because my seat is particularly wealthy. Indeed, it is at the opposite end. I have quite an old electorate. I have the oldest council district in the country, in Victor Harbor, and there are a lot of retirees down in that area, particularly pensioners. Kangaroo Island, which is a great part of our country, is also low socioeconomically. So people are sacrificing for private health insurance because they know it gives them better treatment. It gives them the treatment that they desire.

If we dig down on the figures I have, about 50,000 voters in my electorate, which is about 52 per cent of the electorate, have hospital treatment insurance: singles, 13,000; families, 18,000; and all persons, 70,000. Families are an important number in this respect because pregnancy is a very important time for young families. My family have private health insurance and we chose to have our two children in private hospitals; in fact, our first child was born in John James Hospital here in Canberra. In terms of general treatment insurance, 58,000 voters in my electorate have that, which is 60 per cent of my electorate. So I make the point that it is a very important policy issue in my electorate and that this legislation is a real attack on my electorate and my constituents. It is a very disappointing attack by those on the other side, who seek to claim that they represent the working class, but we know that it is really an attack on the private health insurance industry. It is dressed up as Robin Hood politics, as I said earlier and as many of my colleagues have said. But the facts are that for every rebated dollar, a privately insured person contributes two more to our health system as a whole, which really makes the point that when state governments around the country simply cannot manage the hospital system, when the waiting lists are appalling and the treatment received at times is disturbingly lacklustre, we do need another stream of health care. In particular, we need pressure taken off the public hospitals so the hard-working doctors and nurses in the public hospital system dealing with emergencies can get on and do so.

In the time available this evening I want to deal with election promises. Non-core election promises was something that those on the other side of the House used to sprout all about quite often when they were on this side of the House. We used to hear them campaigning regularly against the former Prime Minister for non-core promises, which was a reference to a series of promises that the previous government had to wind back after they were elected in 1996 because when they got into government there simply was not the money. The debt at that point was about $96 billion. In today’s terms that is not very much, but in those days it was a significant shock to the government, along with the big black hole of a $10 billion budget deficit. That forced the then government of Prime Minister Howard and the member for Higgins, the former Treasurer, to go back and look at the promises they had made. That was the right thing to do because they needed to get the budget back in the black, which the coalition did. There was a time a couple of years ago when the budget was in surplus, with money in the bank—but there is a television ad at the moment which tells us about that, so I will not press on on that issue.

So some tough decisions were required by the previous government, and the Labor Party, opportunistically, voted on this side of the House against every one of those tough decisions—an interesting point to raise, given the current debate going on day after day in question time. They would vote against every measure to reduce the debt that they had given this country and that they had not told the Australian people about during that election campaign, but a debt that had to be addressed nonetheless. This side of the parliament did so and put us back in surplus with money in the bank. The former Prime Minister and former Treasurer had the intestinal fortitude to stand up and say, ‘We have to get rid of certain promises, we have to change tack on certain issues because the money is not there, we have to make some tough decisions.’

Compare that to the behaviour of the current incumbent in the office who, the day after the budget, went on Neil Mitchell’s program on Radio 3AW. That is a very difficult interview for senior politicians; I grant the Prime Minister that. However, I will quote from the transcript put out by the Prime Minister’s office:

Mitchell: Will you apologise to the Australian people for directly breaking the promises you made before the election?

PM: Neil I accept full responsibility for that and for not being able to fulfil some of those policy commitments.

Mitchell: It is not that, it is the promises broken.

PM: No, no policy commitments.

Mitchell: Promises broken, Prime Minister.

PM: Policy commitments that we haven’t fulfilled …

We could go on. So we see a Prime Minister unable to take responsibility for breaking an election promise, and this was a rolled-gold election promise. A letter sent by the then opposition leader—now Prime Minister—on 20 November 2007, days before the election, was in response to the Australian Health Insurance Association’s seeking clarification on federal Labor’s policy regarding private health insurance, said:

Both my Shadow Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon and I have made clear on many occasions this year that Federal Labor is committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates, including the 30 per cent general rebate and 35 and 40 per cent rebates for older Australians.

That does seem to be a clear broken promise. That seemed to be a pretty strong commitment there from the then opposition leader. But, not content with that, when he was elected Prime Minister he reassured the Australian public in February 2008 at a press conference in the grand prime ministerial courtyard:

The private health insurance rebate policy remains unchanged and will remain unchanged.

So we see a clear breach of trust; a rolled-gold election promise broken. That in itself is not necessarily a bad reflection on the Prime Minister because sometimes governments do need to change tack. We all admit that. It is probably better to put it to an election, but on occasions there is a need to change policies when circumstances change. However, you need to take responsibility for it and you need to be honest about it, and that is not what we see from this Prime Minister.

I put to the House that what this is actually about is that the Labor Party have wanted to do this for some time. This is not a new idea. As I understand from sources inside Treasury, this was put up last year to the Treasurer as a savings measure and was one of the last to go. Only those on the other side would know the real answer on that. But we do know from the history of the Labor Party that they are quite opposed to the private health insurance rebate. They voted against it in the first place and they have been critics of it for some time, although in recent years they softened that criticism because they realised that this policy was publicly quite popular. The truth is that, in particular, the Deputy Prime Minister believes in the public health system more than in any private health insurance system, particularly a rebate for it.

You just have to look at their form. Like you do with a good horse, you have to go back and look at their form on this. So I did go back and look at their form. As members would remember, there were two big issues in the 2004 campaign from those on the other side when the former member for Werriwa, Mark Latham, was the Labor leader. There were two big policy announcements. The first was the schools hit list, and that did not go so well—again, that was a key Labor belief—and the second was Medicare Gold. Medicare Gold was announced, if my memory serves me correctly, about 10 days out from the election, about the Thursday before the election, I believe. It was the Frankenstein child of the current Deputy Prime Minister and her then leader, Mark Latham. Members will remember that the member for Lalor was widely credited as being the chief backer when the former member for Werriwa defeated the roosters’ candidate in December 2003. They then worked very closely together on this. The Deputy Prime Minister was the shadow health spokesperson then and she worked on this policy.

For those who have forgotten, the detail of the Medicare Gold policy was that it would give free health care to those over 75. It was a massive budgetary move that would have cost the country a fortune, but it was designed to destroy the private health insurance system. I referred last Monday to the history of Australian elections and the recent 2007 election. I have gone back to another take on the 2004 election written by one of the participants, actually—Mark Latham. In The Latham Diaries, he writes about the Medicare Gold policy:

Medicare Gold was in the same category as the tax and family policy: it wasn’t ready until the campaign. It combined my plan for killing the private health insurance rebate with Duckett and Swerissen’s vision for extending Federal responsibilities in hospital care. It required a lot of work to model the private insurance indications and to secure the cooperation of the states, all handled by Gillard—

that is, the current Deputy Prime Minister. He goes on:

Gillard always referred to it as ‘the policy that dare not speak its name’ …

And of course that is the strategy from those on the other side. They want to sneakily get rid of private health insurance, particularly the rebate. That is the real desire of the Labor Party in government: to move on these things they hold dear to their hearts. I must say, all of those on the other side—with the exception of the member for Fowler, who is always very honest about her views on policy issues; I think we all acknowledge that—have been opposed to the private health insurance rebate for forever and a day. The member for Fowler is not arguing; I think that is a fair point!

That is the background to this policy decision. It is not all about this budget; it is something they have wanted to do since coming to government. It was not something they could announce in the election campaign, and The Latham Diaries confirm that that was what they are out to do—destroy the private health insurance rebate. We are very grateful that the former leader wrote his version of events in 2004!

So this measure is about two things. Firstly, it is about Labor’s hatred of the private insurance rebate, although the private health insurance rebate is good policy. It takes pressure off the public health system and helps those who cannot afford private health insurance by taking more people out of the public system. That is a good thing for the health system in this country. And this is a dividing line in Australian politics. We on this side of the House believe very strongly in the private health insurance rebate and the private health insurance industry—those on the other side, not so much. Secondly, it is about this government’s inability to manage the economy. This is one of a series of revenue-raising measures, although it is only $1.9 billion over four years and that will be but a small drop in a bucket in trying to attack this debt of $315 billion and rising. It is about the Labor Party’s ideological opposition to private health insurance and it is the signal that they have lost control of the economy. We have seen spiralling debt, we see a spiralling deficit and we see no plan to manage the economy properly. From opposition, the former Leader of the Opposition was able to offer a reasonable alternative which was also addressing a health concern.

I have noticed members on the other side are trying to draw a parallel between our opposition to the alcopops tax—and I firmly opposed the alcopops tax—and our suggestion to raise the tax on cigarettes. As a Liberal I do not like raising taxes, but in 1996 we had to do it when there was such a huge debt and deficit. Firstly, the alcopops issue was about addressing one aspect of alcohol rather than alcohol across the board. Secondly, it was dressed up as a health policy when really it was a revenue measure, as we said all along. Now we hear the Labor Party saying, ‘The opposition found a revenue measure in cigarettes.’ Well, of course, that is what the alcopops tax was. All they have to do is be honest about that and admit that, but of course they cannot.

What we have seen from this government is an inability to manage this economy. We are seeing spiralling debt. We are seeing them going back to their true beliefs, with the Deputy Prime Minister and her comrades seeking to destroy the private health insurance system. This is a bad piece of policy. It will impact enormously on my constituency in Mayo, 62 per cent of whom, as I said earlier, have private health insurance—quite a high rate of private health insurance cover. It is very disappointing to see a government make this decision. We on this side of the House stand starkly opposed to this decision. We just hope desperately that the Labor government can get their house in order and start managing this economy properly.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 8.29 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 34. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.