Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition is supporting the Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2009. This is a housekeeping bill. For those in the public gallery, this is one of those bills that are presented every year and which both sides of the House support. When there is legislation that the opposition does not support it always gets an airing but this is a housekeeping bill that is required to come forward to the House every year.

The bill ensures that the low-income threshold for the Medicare levy in particular is indexed to the consumer price index. That ensures that the threshold for those who do not pay the Medicare levy because they are low-income earners is increased in line with inflation. Because this is a tax bill it is required to come into the House every year. It has done so in the past and every year these thresholds have been increased as a result of increases in the CPI. I think, although I stand to be corrected, that there was one exception to that in the late nineties when the consumer price index was negative—that is, it did not increase during that year.

The bill also increases the low-income threshold for the Medicare levy surcharge. How that works, as my colleague Parliamentary Secretary Byrne knows, is that a high-income earner who does not have private insurance is required to pay the Medicare levy surcharge. In a couple or family situation if the partner earns below the low-income Medicare levy surcharge amount, which is identical to the other threshold I mentioned—the Medicare levy low-income threshold—that partner is not required to pay the surcharge. So, this is increased in line with inflation. Of course, there are a range of thresholds when you come to consider family circumstances—the number of children and the rest—and all of those are increased in line with the CPI in this bill.

As I said at the outset, this is a housekeeping bill. It is one that both sides of this House support, as a matter of good public policy, and it has occurred since the introduction of Medicare back in the 1980s and the introduction of the Medicare levy surcharge itself in the 1990s. On behalf of the opposition I commend the bill to the House.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2009. When I visit community groups and talk to schoolkids I am often asked questions about how the House works. People, including children, see a lot of conflict in the debates that feature on TV. When I tell them that there are quite a few piece of legislation that pass through the House that have the support of both sides they are really quite surprised. This is one piece of legislation that fits into that category. The member for Casey quite eloquently described why it is supported by both sides. It is housekeeping legislation that really maintains the status quo. And that is very important for the efficient, effective working of Medicare.

Medicare works because it provides universal health care: it provides health care to all Australians. Those people who are on lower incomes and cannot afford to pay any levy are not charged a levy. That is what this legislation does—it ensures that those people will not be charged a levy. It is all about good health care for all Australians. Medicare provides access to health care for all Australians. Australians know that they can visit their doctor when they are sick. They know that they can access health care when they are ill and that their care is determined not by their ability to pay but by their need to obtain the health care in question.

I have just received a note with some very important information on it from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, who is at the table. I have indicated to him an answer to that question. It is very important to this debate and it will determine the way the debate functions in the House. The legislation before us proposes to increase the Medicare levy low-income threshold for singles and families and the Medicare levy surcharge low-income threshold. In line with movements in the consumer price index the Medicare levy low-income threshold for pensioners below the age pension will also be increased to ensure that individuals in this group do not incur a Medicare levy liability when they do not have a taxable income. The increase will apply for the 2008-09 income year and later income years.

When I meet with pensioners and other groups of people who receive a low income they argue, and I accept their argument, that when they were in the workforce they contributed by paying the levy and that they now need to rely on the fact that they can still access Medicare without having to pay costs they cannot afford. The Medicare levy is imposed on a resident’s entire taxable income at a flat rate of 1.5 per cent. However, and this is the important point, low-income earners are not liable for the Medicare levy, consistent with the progressive nature of the income tax system. I am all sure members of this House support the progressive income tax system that we have in Australia. I am most hopeful that all members of this House support Medicare.

It is very important to the people in the electorate of Shortland, particularly in the suburb of Belmont, that following the budget they will again be able to access Medicare services within Belmont. One of the very popular announcements in the budget was the reopening of a Medicare office in Belmont. The residents in the area have fought long and hard for this. The Medicare office was closed in 1997 by the Howard government, although it was in fact one of the busiest Medicare offices in the area. As I think I have mentioned quite a few times in my contribution to these debates, the Shortland electorate is a very old area and a lot of people do not have a high disposable income. There are quite a few people who are covered by the legislation we are debating here today.

The closure of that Medicare office created enormous pressure and obstacles for people. I have submitted to the parliament in the vicinity of 20,000 signatures to petitions from residents asking the government to reopen the office. I believe I have campaigned on reopening the Belmont Medicare office at every election in which I have stood for the federal parliament. The good news is that it will finally happen. The people who put those 20,000 signatures on the petitions will soon be able to travel to Belmont or walk around the corner to the Medicare office in Belmont instead of having to travel either to Charlestown or to Lake Haven on the Central Coast.

The closure of the Medicare office was an issue because of the number of elderly residents in the area, a number of whom hold a restricted licence. Whilst the bus service from Belmont to Charlestown is quite good, it can take up to an hour to travel that distance. Because of the low disposable incomes of people, they mostly needed to go straight from their doctor to the Medicare office to claim their refund in order obtain the medicines their doctor had prescribed, and so this was an enormous issue within the electorate. Since the announcement that the Medicare office will reopen before January 2010, my office has been flooded with phone calls and I have received numerous emails from residents thanking the government for its commitment and for being mindful of their need for a Medicare office in Belmont. I cannot debate any legislation related to Medicare, particularly at this time, without putting that on the table. I am expressing the thanks and the gratitude of the people of Belmont for the government’s care and commitment to them on a very important issue.

I will come back to the legislation that we are debating. The Medicare levy low-income threshold for individuals and families will be increased in line with the CPI, as I have already stated. Similar amendments have been announced in previous budgets and have always enjoyed bipartisan support. I will finish where I started by saying that people around Australia would be surprised at the number of pieces of legislation that pass this House with support from both sides. Ensuring that people on low incomes can access Medicare without having to pay a surcharge is one thing the House unites on unanimously.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am hoping to get the support of the previous speaker, the member for Shortland, shortly in my contribution, but I would say to those who were listening to that speech about the reopening of a Medicare office in Belmont that Medicare offices are no longer needed, of course, because you can have your refunds done when you go to the doctor.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It takes 48 hours.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I concede that, but you do not actually need a Medicare office any longer in Australia. I agree with her that Medicare provides all Australians with access to health care, and we on both sides of the parliament all support Medicare. Where I do need the support of the member for Shortland is in relation to the services provided under Medicare at the Townsville Hospital. Currently the Townsville Hospital has the highest number of people on a waiting list—but get this, Mr Deputy Speaker: they are on a waiting list, waiting to get on a waiting list at the hospital. How could that be?

The numbers are higher than at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, for example. There are 21,451 people on the waiting list for specialist outpatient appointments—before they even get onto the elective surgery waiting list. That is disgraceful. Medicare has got to address that. Through the efforts of all of us in this parliament we have got to make sure that Medicare understands that it is there to provide access to health care for all Australians in a timely way. Consider that a major, level 6 public hospital in Northern Australia has 21,451 people on a waiting list, waiting to get on a waiting list. That is not good service and it should not be allowed to continue. I plead with our health bureaucrats and I plead with the state government, which manages the Townsville Hospital, to address that issue.

Of course, I am very mindful that the current government gave a commitment 18 months ago that, if the public hospital system in Australia was not fixed within 18 months, the Commonwealth would take over the public hospital system. That 18 months will be up on 30 June—very shortly—and it will be interesting to see the response of the government.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s not actually what he said. We’ve got this thing called the Constitution.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. The member for Moreton is raising the Constitution. However, let us—

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Perrett interjecting

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Ripoll interjecting

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Gentlemen! Thank you.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Moreton is a great friend of mine, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I welcome his interjections.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Ripoll interjecting

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry. The member for Oxley is a great friend of mine as well, only the member for Moreton and I have more hair than the member for Oxley. But I do ask my colleagues in the government to seriously think about whether the Australian government should be taking over the hospital system. It could not be worse than what is happening in Queensland at the moment. To have so many people in my community waiting on a waiting list to get on a waiting list I think speaks volumes on what needs to be done.

The Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2009 is a routine matter. It comes before the parliament on a continual basis. It is supported by both sides of the parliament and it is certainly well and truly supported by the Australian people. I will be voting for this bill.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2009. I note that the opposition will be supporting this bill. While the Liberal and National parties are supporting this bill and they say that it is just a procedural bill, which is correct, it also provides at its core a measure which is very important to low-income families, low-income individuals and those who are doing it toughest in the community.

There is no question that Labor is committed to Medicare as a philosophical approach to delivering universal health care to all Australians. Medicare is to ensure that the Australian community is confident that in this country at least we have a healthcare system which looks after everybody and that does that in the best and most efficient way that it can. I am and I know the Labor government is deeply committed to Medicare, as we are the architects of Medicare and because of what it provides to working people and everyone across the community. But we are also committed to private health care and private health insurance. Those two sectors combined provide for a very efficient system in Australia, which is the envy of the world.

I ask the opposition, the Liberal and National parties, to take a close look at the ways that in the past they have tried to damage or in some way get rid of Medicare. I know they would probably object to hearing that today, but that is the reality of what took place in the past. My view is that, on those issues, they have not changed. What changes is the rhetoric and what they put out to the community, but their ideology has not changed. So while this government remains committed not only to Medicare but also to private health insurance, to an efficient universal healthcare system which provides for all Australians, what we find on the other side at every opportunity is their opposition to any such good measures.

The Medicare levy low-income thresholds for individuals and families will be increased in line with movements in the CPI. This is very important in order to ensure that low-income families are not penalised for any increase in income they may have through a rise in the consumer price index. It is to make sure that those people are not dealt out of having this measure apply to them. The obvious point to make is that the higher the threshold for low-income earners the more people are eligible to actually have the Medicare levy not apply to them under these measures. This is great news for a whole range of individuals across the community, in particular pensioners, and it is in line with the whole range of commitments we have made to low-income people and pensioners across the community.

Similar amendments have been announced in previous budgets. We have heard from opposition speakers that, in terms of making these annual adjustments, this bill is in line with previous bills put to this parliament—except for one year where the CPI was actually negative and we therefore did not move to change it. I know that it will get the support of the other side.

As I said earlier, however, I have to note in this debate that I fought for many years in my community not only to save Medicare offices but to protect Medicare as an institution itself. For quite a long time there, it was the intent of the former government to actually destroy the Medicare that we know today. I do believe in progressive change, and I understand that we are moving away from the physical provision of Medicare offices to a more efficient system through Medicare provision points. That is the way of the future. I know that communities often do get upset about this if they do not quite fully understand. Whilst I would not advocate at any point that a community should lose a Medicare office—in fact, I would stand up in support of the retention of Medicare offices—I do understand that where new communities are developing, particularly in my electorate of Oxley which is a growing community, that with such communities we do need to have these access points. And we have done that. This government has delivered those access points for people in a whole range of growth areas to make sure they are not penalised in any particular way when getting either the Medicare gap or some other payment that they are entitled to receive. They can use the phone or go to a pharmacy or some other community point and get reimbursed through electronic funds transfer into their accounts. This government will continue to support Medicare access points, Medicare offices and the broader system itself.

This bill proposes, as I mentioned earlier, to increase the Medicare levy low-income threshold for individuals and for families and, in particular, the Medicare levy surcharge provisions themselves. The increases are to ensure that low-income individuals and families will not continue to be required to pay the Medicare levy or surcharge. It would be an unfair and undesired outcome if that were not the case. These increases are in line with movements in the consumer price index. The amendments will apply to 2008-09 and later income years.

Just as a matter of background, the bill amends the Medicare Levy Act 1986 to raise the Medicare levy low-income threshold amounts and phase-in limits for individuals and families and for pensioners below the age pension age. The bill also amends the A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Act 1999 to increase the Medicare levy surcharge low-income threshold as well. The increases in the thresholds and the phase-in limits are in line with increases in the consumer price index.

Medicare is partly funded by a levy on taxable income. I think everybody understands broadly how the system works and that they broadly understand its importance in terms of healthcare provision in this country. Medicare was first introduced in 1984. I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would remember it fondly—

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just!

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

as a key plank of a commitment that the then Labor government made. It is an example of one of those great legacy policies that have held us in great stead, just as we did with infrastructure and other things that freed up the economy under the Hawke and Keating years, improved productivity and competition and set the scene and the framework for the delivery of uninterrupted growth in this country for nearly 20 years. Those policies provided people with a level of prosperity that they have enjoyed for many, many years. I am always proud to recount those great events. In passing, I note that a number of opposition members have actually accredited that growth to those governments and the policies of the Hawke and Keating years.

When Medicare was first introduced in 1984 the levy was set at just one per cent of taxable income and there was a low-income threshold amount below which no levy was payable at all. In 1995 the Medicare levy was increased to its current level of 1.5 per cent of taxable income. That was to reflect a proper growth mechanism and a proper income stream to ensure that the government could afford to continue this very important scheme.

The Medicare levy surcharge is an additional one per cent surcharge on taxable income imposed on higher income earners who do not have private patient hospital insurance. Again, this is a fair measure both for high-income earners and for those who choose, for whatever reason, not to take out private cover. It is part of a suite of assurances to make certain that the Australian government can provide a long-term sustainable scheme for all Australians. The current taxable income thresholds above which the Medicare levy surcharge is payable are $70,000 for single income earners and $140,000 for couples and families. Again, this is a fair measure, and particularly so in the case of families where one income earner may be earning a substantial amount of income and the second partner may be earning just a very small amount of income. Contained within our scheme is an ability to ensure that only the high-income earner of that family, not the low-income partner in that relationship, actually pays the surcharge.

The Medicare levy and the Medicare levy surcharge only contribute to part of the total cost of Medicare. I am not sure it is always comprehended by everyone in the community or even in this place that it does not cover the costs of providing for the health care of Australians. In 2007-08, Medicare levy revenue was around $8 billion while the cost of Medicare itself for the same period was around $18.9 billion, which, as you can see, means there is a substantial shortfall of over $10 billion. So it is necessary that the government take all measures to ensure the sustainability of this essential scheme. It is essential that the government provides that the scheme can be maintained into the future for all Australians. I think that is something that everyone in this place does support and should support. We will certainly use every avenue and every policy measure open to us to meet our commitments in these areas.

Low-income earners are exempted from paying the Medicare levy and the Medicare levy surcharge. As I have already mentioned, phase-in limits apply equally to both low-income individuals and families. The taxable income levels below which no Medicare levy is payable at all are specified in the act of 1986. These levels are regularly adjusted via legislation in line with movements in the consumer price index—hence the bill we have before us today—and they apply across the board to everybody regardless of their circumstance, be they individuals, couples, families or pensioners above or below the age pension age.

The Medicare Levy Act 1986 also provides for a phasing in or shading out range, wherein the Medicare levy applies but at a reduced rate. This is to reflect a proper mechanism in order to ensure that there is not a drop-off which cuts in and out as an off-the-table type measure. For individuals with taxable incomes above the low-income threshold but below what is known as the phase-in limit, the Medicare levy is payable at a rate of 10 per cent of the amount over the low-income threshold. This is a good measure and a sensible measure to provide some equity for people who always sit just on that threshold level and are penalised more greatly by just tripping over the line and having a net deficit through having that applied to them.

We have done a number of things since coming to government to ensure the sustainability of the Medicare system and the healthcare system in this country. Those areas range far too widely for me to cover exhaustively in the short time I have available, but I will touch on a few. Firstly, regarding preventative health care, there is an organisation in my electorate called Inala Primary Care. I declare some interest in that I am a board member of the organisation. I have spoken about them in the past, but I want to again put on the record the good work that they are doing. It is very important to note that a key area of long-term health is preventative health care. The more that the government invests in organisations, facilities and personnel that provide preventative health care the better off our health system and the health of all Australian citizens will be.

We live in an era when chronic or morbid obesity, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and a range of other diseases afflict so many in the community that merely treating the symptoms and the final outcomes is just not good enough. It is a huge impost on our health system and the government needs to take a broader role in dealing with these issues. One of the best ways to do that is to invest in preventative health care. That is exactly what Inala Primary Care does in my electorate, and I commend the good work being done there.

As part of a broader suite of measures to modernise the Medicare Benefits Schedule, we need to recognise that there are advances in techniques and technology. That has enabled a number of medical procedures to be performed much more safely, quickly and efficiently today. This is something we should all applaud. It also means that they can be done at a lower cost, which does present some controversy regarding rebates, the Medicare Benefits Schedule and a range of other areas. However, this has not yet been reflected in how Medicare pays for these services. If we are to be realistic about the long-term sustainability of our Medicare system, then we need to apply the proper principles to those rebates and schemes, reflecting modern technology and better practices, experience, safety and efficiencies. I will not go into all of the details around that, but it does involve a reduction in certain rebates for certain procedures. Modernising a system is always difficult. People become comfortable with or reliant on existing systems and procedures, but we all need to change to embrace what in the end will be cost savings to the government. These savings can be reinvested in communities, preventative health care and a range of other areas that currently may not be on the schedules.

On the subject of the schedules of rebates, it is not as if the government does not take this very seriously or give it far-ranging application. There are some 5,800 procedures covered by Medicare, which reflects the complexity of health issues in the community. But we do not need any government to just sit on those and not review them or otherwise encourage change. That is exactly what the government has done. We have taken on a review of medical services listed on the Medicare Benefits Schedule and we have undertaken to evaluate the services under a number of criteria which include scientific evidence, clinical and pricing appropriateness and the extent to which technological advances have delivered efficiencies. That review process will commence on 1 January 2010.

New services are expected to be reviewed three years after being listed. That is a key issue. There are new services continually being added to the list, creating a great service to the community but also a bigger burden to the costs of the Medicare system itself. The evaluation framework will be based on research, data analysis and consultation with stakeholders, and the savings that will be generated will help to address the increasing cost of the Medicare system itself. I do understand there is some criticism from the medical profession and lobby groups, such as the AMA, but we have made sure that they are involved in the process. We have made sure that they are a part of the process itself. To help manage these concerns, we will be inviting them and other consumer organisations to get involved in the design and the implementation of the new evaluation framework. This will be an important part of what Medicare and the rebate system on a number of procedures will actually look like in the future.

The background to this is quite simple. When you have 5,800 medical services currently listed on the MBS at a cost to taxpayers of over $13 billion per annum, you need to look at systems that will provide better efficiency and provide bang for the dollar for people seeking medical help. The average annual growth for the system is five per cent nominally per year. Currently, only one per cent of listed MBS items have been formally assessed for efficiency and cost effectiveness, which is obviously not good enough, and that needs to be addressed as well.

In conclusion, a lot has changed since the introduction of Medicare in 1984, but a lot has changed for the better. There have been some very positive improvements in people’s general health across the community, but we face many more challenges in the future. This bill delivers on ensuring that we do the simple things right, but it is part of a broader suite of bills, philosophies and changes that this government will bring to the parliament to ensure we have a sustainable Medicare system in the future.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak after the member for Oxley in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2009 because I was going to talk about one of his illustrious predecessors in the seat of Oxley, the Hon. Bill Hayden, who actually introduced Medibank, which was a tremendous initiative many years ago. The member for Oxley went through in detail what the changes are and how they will assist those on low and middle incomes so that they do not get a tax burden which would otherwise be imposed upon them if we did not make this legislative change. The member for Oxley talked about the fact that this legislation before the House proposes to increase the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for individuals and families in line with movements in the CPI. That is fair and just in all the circumstances. In respect of the Medicare levy surcharge provisions, the low-income threshold is also going to be increased in line with increases in the CPI so that low-income family members will continue not to be subject to the Medicare levy surcharge.

Although this bill before the House receives bipartisan support, it was not always the case when it came to Medicare. Medicare was once described famously—or should I say infamously—by the former Liberal Prime Minister John Howard as a rort. In fact, those on the opposite side of this chamber—and in the chamber down the road in Old Parliament House—and in the Senate consistently opposed health reform in this country. That is the reality. The Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs and Assistant Treasurer said in his second reading speech on 28 May this year:

Those on low incomes are among the most vulnerable Australians—particularly amid this global recession—and the Rudd government is determined to make sure these Australians remain exempt from the Medicare levy.

The reality is that the coalition has always had a degree of ambivalence when it comes to health reform and has always had a degree of opposition when it comes to the universality of health care for all Australians. I have heard Medibank and Medicare described as universal in coverage, equitable in distribution of costs and administratively simple to manage—and those were the aspirations of it. But it is important for those who are listening to understand that when Labor governments bring in legislation that deals with universal health cover to help low- and middle-income families, and particularly legislation like this, we do not always receive bipartisan support from those who sit amongst the conservative establishment in this country.

The reality is that, when we first tried to bring in the kind of reform and change that would ensure that Australians universally received the kind of health care we expect and they expect in a decent and humane society, it was opposed steadfastly by the coalition. It was the Whitlam Labor government which brought forward a number of major initiatives with respect to health insurance. For example, the Health Insurance Bill 1973 was the main bill which established Medibank, and there were several accompanying bills. The Senate, controlled by those opposite, opposed it on three occasions—on 12 December 1973, 2 April 1974 and 18 July 1974. It took a double dissolution and a joint sitting of both houses on 7 August 1974, following that double dissolution, to ensure that we had Medibank in this country—which commenced on 1 July 1975. The Hon. Bill Hayden, the Minister for Social Security and the member for Oxley at the time, was the architect of Medibank. Medibank was the first step—a step that should not have been destroyed, gutted and nullified by the Fraser government. Bill Hayden deserves enormous credit for what he did in seeking to establish decent and humane health care across the country. He was opposed every step of the way by the coalition, the AMA and the medical establishment.

Former Liberal opposition leader Malcolm Fraser promised in the 1975 election to maintain Medibank, but he then opposed it and seemed, every step of the way, to do everything he possibly could to dismantle its universal and low-cost objectives. It took the election of a Labor government, the Hawke-Keating government, in 1983 to bring back that universality of care in Australia.

In February 1984, Medicare was introduced. The truth is that we do not always enjoy bipartisan support when it comes to healthcare reform in this country. We are seeing that in response to this budget. We have seen those opposite oppose so many changes in relation to health reform to make health care more just, equitable, efficient and cost-effective across the country. It is important for Australians who are listening to this speech to know that it is Labor governments who undertake health reform with certainty, with determination and with clarity.

The former health minister, Dr Neal Blewett, said in his second reading speech in September 1983 that the legislation to introduce Medicare was ‘a major social reform’ that would ‘embody a health insurance system that is simple, fair and affordable’. He also emphasised the ‘universality of cover’ as being ‘desirable from an equity point of view’ and ‘in terms of efficiency and reduced administrative costs’. That is Labor’s goal, Labor’s aspiration and Labor’s determination. We have always believed that providing health care to Australians is an article of faith.

We strongly believe that funding our school systems, both private and public, is crucial not just for the productivity, economic development and wealth of the country but for social inclusion, social justice and social equity. We also believe that people—working families, individuals, pensioners and those who are doing it tough, including people in my electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland—should have affordable health care. Mothers and fathers should not have to determine whether they can afford to take their children to a doctor or a private hospital. In our decent and humane society, parents should not have to choose whether they take their children to see a doctor, an allied health professional; feed and cloth their children; or allow their children to engage in recreation, sporting and cultural activities in our country. Parents should not have to make that choice.

We should in this place provide universal healthcare coverage. We should do everything we can to ensure that the Medicare system is fair and equitable. That is why we are passing this legislation, and I am pleased that the coalition has given us bipartisan support. Not always do they support low- and middle-income earners. The truth is that at times when in government the coalition took steps that ensured that it was tough for low-and middle-income earners. They always seem to be on the side of the AMA, the big health insurance companies and those pillars of the establishment that want to oppose universal healthcare coverage. That is the reality.

In my electorate, in Ipswich, in the Lockyer Valley and in the Fassifern Valley, people expect that if their children are sick they can get coverage and they can take their children to a doctor or a hospital. That is why one of the first acts of the Rudd government upon its election—putting $1.6 billion into the health system—was so warmly welcomed in my electorate. Reduction of elective surgery lists and supporting public hospitals are good Labor principles. This legislation is typical of a Labor government that wants to care for low- and middle-income earners. In the circumstances, I commend the bill to the House.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—I would like to thank all members who have contributed to this debate. The Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2009 increases the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for individuals and families in line with increases in the consumer price index. The individual threshold amount is to be increased from $17,309 to $17,794. The family income threshold is to be increased from $29,207 to $30,025. The Medicare levy low-income threshold for pensioners below pension age is also increased to ensure that where these pensioners do not have a tax liability they do not have a Medicare levy liability. The low-income threshold and the Medicare levy surcharge provisions are similarly increased.

These changes ensure that low-income individuals and families will continue to be exempt from the Medicare levy or surcharge. The amendments to the Medicare levy low-income thresholds apply to the 2008-09 year of income and later years of income. Indexation of Medicare has enjoyed bipartisan support for a number of years, and I acknowledge the support of the opposition, as outlined by the member for Casey today. Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I again thank those who have contributed and commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.