Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2010. This bill was introduced on 13 May 2010 and increases the low-income threshold for the Medicare levy and Medicare levy surcharge in line with increases in the consumer price index for the 2009-10 income year. This bill maintains the intention of the low-income thresholds by ensuring that individuals and families on low incomes remain exempt from the Medicare levy and Medicare levy surcharge according to changes in the CPI. So this is an annual event and, I have to say, a quite unremarkable one.

The low-income threshold for the Medicare levy and Medicare levy surcharge has been increased in line with the CPI since 1996-97. Similar bills have been introduced into this House by the previous coalition government and the current government in every year since 1996-97, with the exception of 1998-99, when the CPI was a negative figure. The increases to the low-income threshold for the Medicare levy and Medicare levy surcharge will apply from the 2009-10 income year. I commend the bill to the House.

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

I speak in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2010. I come from a working-class family in Ipswich, and we thought when I was growing up that the provision of both education and decent health care was absolutely vital. My local member of federal parliament during most of the time that I was growing up was Bill Hayden, who brought in Medibank over the objections of doctors and the Fraser coalition government. He brought in many reforms. Medibank gave working-class people, people on low incomes, pensioners and others their first opportunity to access a decent healthcare system in this country. It was long overdue. Medibank was a great initiative, but it was gutted and effectively neutered by the Fraser government. Medicare, which was brought in by again a Labor government in the 1980s during the Hawke-Keating years, was absolutely vital.

We want to make sure that people on low incomes who cannot achieve financial security and are in a position where they need decent health care but cannot afford it are provided with quality care in our health and hospital system. I am pleased with what we are doing in the budget both nationally and in my area, which I will talk about very briefly. I am also pleased that this housekeeping bill, which makes a difference to people’s lives financially, has been brought forward once again this year. The Medicare levy is imposed at a flat rate of 1.5 per cent on a resident’s entire taxable income. We want to make provision—and I think there has been a bipartisan approach to this—for people on low incomes not to be liable for the Medicare levy.

We have a progressive tax system in this country. It is not a regressive tax system when it comes to income tax. We want to make sure that people who have what economists would call low economic status are provided for in terms of their costs for health and hospital care. Medicare is a great Labor initiative. I am pleased that the previous, coalition government undertook the adjustments every year, except, as the member for Farrer said, in 1998-99, when there was a negative movement in the CPI. The legislation proposes to increase the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for individuals and families, lining them up with movements in the consumer price index. The legislation also proposes to increase the Medicare levy low-income threshold for pensioners below the age of eligibility for the age pension to make sure that this group of individuals will not have a Medicare levy liability when they do not have an income tax liability. As the legislation makes plain, increases apply to this income year—that is, 2009-10—and future income years.

This is an important change because it means that people do not have to pay the levy if they are low-income earners and there will be more money in their pockets. It means that they will be in a position to afford to pay for the necessities of life, such as food and clothing for themselves and their children. It is important to make sure that they have extra income in their hands to do those sorts of things. The provision of health care and making sure that Medicare operates successfully, efficiently and effectively is crucial to people not just nationally but locally in my area. As federal members of parliament, I am sure that all of us have had people come to us from time to time in relation to Medicare and, certainly, in relation to private health insurance and other issues. How we treat people on low incomes in a decent way, by providing adequate services in terms of primary health care and hospitals, says a lot about where we are at as a country, in the states and in our communities.

What the government is trying to do with respect to building the National Health and Hospitals Network for the future adds to a lot of the legislation that we deal with every day in this place, including this legislation. Creating the National Health and Hospitals Network, which the Prime Minister often says is funded nationally but run locally, will be important. Making sure that Medicare is strengthened is also critical for our health and hospitals system.

Each year we see budgets in this place and money is rolled out. The Rudd government is delivering an additional $2.2 billion over four years for better access to more doctors and GPs. Those GPs engage with Medicare every day in their practices. This unprecedented amount of support for Medicare is critical in my community, which has a shortage of doctors. We have had that shortage for quite some time. The provision in the budget will help my community. Additional doctors, more subacute hospital beds and additional aged-care beds will also make a difference.

The legislation before the House is quite minor, but, like so much legislation, it will make a difference to people’s lives. It will make a difference to low-income earners and pensioners, and they are the ones we should care for the most. As a Labor representative I always believe that we should care for those in need, those on low incomes and those who are struggling. That is because of the experiences that I had in my household when I was growing up, and certainly many others on this side of the House had those experiences as well. I dare say that some on the opposite side of the chamber had those experiences as well. This important legislation might be housekeeping legislation, but it will make a real difference in people’s lives by putting money back in their pockets, and that will make a difference to my community. I support the legislation.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2010 has been represented as a simple measure. It is a measure that has occurred in all years bar one. It proposes to address two issues related to the Medicare levy per se and the Medicare charges, which were altered during the years of the Howard government for good reason. Of course, that has been sustained by this government in its desperation to find any amount of money possible to fund its failed health policies. Quite properly, the levy and the thresholds involved do not call upon low-income earners to make a contribution to the health budget of Australia if they earn income below the level referred to in the legislation.

There may be a reason that the parliament deals each year with those amounts of money when it is openly admitted that they are adjusted to the consumer price index. The consumer price index is, of course, known. Often the adjusted amounts in this circumstance are increases in real terms. The parliament continues to make this adjustment and records it in the Hansard on an annual basis. As I said, there was no adjustment in only one year, and, of course, that was a year in which the CPI demonstrated a negative movement.

It is interesting to note in that regard, and as a consequence of that period under the Howard government when inflation, with all of its debilitating effects, was just about wiped out of the Australian economy, that it became apparent that pensioners, for instance, needed a new index, which became known as MTAWE, which is, as I recollect, a 25 per cent proportion of male total average weekly earnings. This is an arrangement that is of importance because it adjusted people’s pensions to a figure more commensurate with the huge increase that was occurring in real wages under that disgraceful scheme known as Work Choices—so blackguarded in this place. But the real increase in wages for workers, and of course their employment opportunities, were huge during that period and it was appropriate consequently to ensure that pensioners could better meet the cost of living that arose in those circumstances by being given a percentage of male total average weekly earnings.

This legislation deals firstly with the circumstances of pensioners, and, of course, even fully-fledged age pensioners have additional income from time to time. It sets out in the tables to be found in the explanatory memorandum the threshold after which persons must pay the Medicare levy at a rate of 10c in the dollar for every dollar they earn over and above the threshold until such time as they pay the full rates applicable.

Nevertheless, the surcharge is of much more interest to me inasmuch as it was an initiative of the Howard government which I had argued for in 1998 with a policy that, in the first instance, recognised the foolishness of the argument of community rating, where a young and healthy person was obliged, and is still obliged, to pay the same private health insurance premium as a more elderly person. Of course, when it comes to the business of health and the cost of delivering health services, age is a major contributing factor where the costs increase rapidly.

The first point was that it became patently obvious that people had worked out the system and the system was this: while you were young and healthy and unlikely to be affected, other than if you had a car crash or some sporting injury or fell under a bus, to use a common term, then in fact you had to pay the levy unless you were one of these people we are dealing with today whose income was lower than that. The threshold is quite low—an income that does not exceed $18,488 in the adjusted schedule for taxable income or family income. Until then the levy does not apply. But you paid it, as you had to, and you took the risk on ever having to get in the queue for a public hospital.

Usually the form of injuries that people suffered in their youth guaranteed them access to a public hospital, even if it were, for instance, a premature heart attack that might be visited upon someone in their 30s or 40s. Under that community rating principle, and at a time when you turn, say, 50 or 60 and your knees or hip joints were starting to give you some pain and suffering or you required other treatment, which was termed elective surgery, you went and joined a private health fund. Of course, the private health sector under the Hawke-Keating government was getting loaded up with people for whom they could not increase the premiums above the community rated premium, which was set by government, and the government faced massive payouts for people needing elective surgery.

And the Howard government, in recognising this, but not as I proposed in 1998 by having a three-tier insurance premium structure with an entirely different approach to support the people who could not afford it, said that if you had not entered into an agreement with the private health insurers at an age which I recollect was 30—it is not mentioned in the second reading speech or elsewhere—then in fact an additional one per cent would be added to your Medicare levy. Then there was a further surcharge that applied to people whose income exceeded another level, which meant they were high-income earners and, as such, they could and should pay more if they failed to purchase private health insurance. These measures deal with those matters, and they are the traditional arrangements that apply in setting these particular requirements.

Another measure the Howard government introduced, which had some relationship to my 1988 policy, was a rebate on all private health insurance policies. During the Hawke-Keating government, and I think quite deliberately so, there was huge pressure being put on the private health funds to service all of the high-risk sector in the health services industry. They were on the verge of collapse. It has to be remembered that the Australian Constitution forbids the commercial conscription of medical practitioners and dentists and people of that nature. I think that was put in in 1946—included in the referendum question that for the first time ever gave the Australian government the right to participate in health services. I could never understand why at one stage the Prime Minister was threatening the states with some form of referendum when such a referendum was conducted in 1946 and he has all the powers he needs if he wants to accommodate the cost.

The whole purpose of the rebate was to give 30 per cent of the premium cost by way of a rebate to all persons who participated in private health, and to increase that to 35 per cent and 40 per cent as people passed age thresholds, which I think were 70 and 75—though it might have been 65 and 70. That has seen a massive escalation in private health insurance participation. On the one hand there is a stick that says you will pay additional surcharges, as mentioned in this legislation, if you do not join a private health fund at a certain age and/or when your income exceeds a fairly substantial amount of money—around $130,000, as I recollect—and, on the other hand there is a carrot whereby if you join voluntarily not only are you protected from those surcharges but also the government gives you a rebate. At the last election, the Rudd opposition promised faithfully, one of these cross your heart promises, that they would never revisit that rebate and attempt to alter it. But, surprise surprise, we have been through that exercise in this House—another broken promise; they attempted to means test it.

You can raise all sorts of socialist philosophy about when a rebate of that nature should be paid, but if you consider the commercial arrangements the government is getting a very good deal by convincing people they should pay two-thirds of their own hospital costs through a private health insurance scheme. That is what it does—it is no gift to those people any more than some government contribution to private schools is a gift to the parents. They pick up the other probably 80 per cent of the cost of educating their children in a private school. If all those schools were to close down—and the private health system was on the threshold of that at the end of the Hawke-Keating government—one would wonder where the state and federal governments would find the money to educate all those kids. I think attendance now at private secondary schools for years 11 and 12 is over 50 per cent—and it could be higher than that.

The reality is that we are still dealing here with a system that in these circumstances, outside of the stick, gives no incentive for more people to participate in the private health industry. Yet, were everybody to be in the private health industry, and were people subsidised up to 100 per cent of the relevant premium cost, the cost to the Australian taxpayer would be less. A very generous premium rebate/subsidy scheme up to 100 per cent could be provided and it would cost less than the present system. But, oh no, we are now being managed by a government that believes it knows best. It believes it can manage the corner store much better than can a small business couple; it can manage public hospitals better than a state administration, and the federal Minister for Health and Ageing will be more available to 21 million Australians seeking health services than a state minister for health—or for that matter a local shire president or mayor in smaller communities where the administration of local hospitals should reside. It would be less expensive and they would have the responsibility of appointing a director of nursing who would have the qualifications to run the hospital, just as they appoint an engineer to design and oversee the construction of their roads or a chief executive to manage the financial affairs of their council. It could be done quite easily and would be less expensive than even these regional boards that are now proposed for a health scheme that nobody seems to understand.

The other fact of life is that when this money is collected and these particular rates and surcharges are collected it will not all go within a bull’s roar, to use an old saying, of the cost of running public health services—exactly the same as we see with the Building the Education Revolution costs. In fact you get a situation that you can see advertised in last week’s Sunday Times in Perth. You can get an air-conditioned, four-bedroom, brick and tile house with a home theatre, an office, two bathrooms and all the trimmings which can be built for $160,000 as advertised. Yet this government, as it manages to shop with its $16 billion expenditure for adding buildings to schools around Australia, needs nearly $1 million to build a tuckshop or, for instance, a covered assembly area which a typical farmer would buy for $50,000 or $60,000 and put all of his expensive and very large plant under. So we have this issue that we should be raising taxes from the Australian people for the purpose of empowering governments and member of parliaments who pride themselves on their ability to run a business, yet they cannot get within 400 per cent of the cost of construction of a building when compared to the private sector—and day after day after day the private education people are demonstrating what happens when people make these decisions at the grassroots. So it is a much bigger deal than the matters we deal with today.

As the financial impact documentation relevant to these measures points out and advises, if we do nothing then, based on that, in 2010-11 government revenues will drop by $90 million, in 2011-12 by $45 million, in 2012-13 by $45 million and in 2013-14 by $45 million. But considering we are going to change those figures each year I think those forecasts might be as good as some of the other forecasts that we have been hearing in recent times. The reality is that this an additional tax system that still applies, but it will be reduced somewhat by relieving certain people on very low incomes—and $18,000 in this day and age is a very low income—from the levy and it will also adjust the surcharge entry point to $31,000 or $36,000 depending on whether it is family income or personal income. That will provide some relief to people, but in fact they should be taking out private health insurance. They should accept their responsibility to do so and they should make sure, by so doing, that they do not crowd out the very needy and deserving who are dependent on—(Time expired)

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2010. This bill proposes to increase the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for singles and families in line with movements in the consumer price index, or CPI. This will be welcome news for many of my constituents in the electorate of Hindmarsh who are on low or fixed incomes. The Medicare levy low-income threshold for pensioners below age pension age will also be increased to ensure that individuals in this cohort will not incur a Medicare levy liability when they do not have an income tax liability. The increases will apply to the 2009-10 year of income and later income years. The government understands that cost of living increases hit low-income and fixed income Australians the hardest, so these threshold increases will ensure that the Medicare levy does not add to those cost pressures.

The Medicare levy is imposed at a flat rate of 1.5 per cent on a resident’s entire taxable income. However, low-income earners are not liable for the Medicare levy, consistent with the progressive nature of income tax. The low-income threshold in the Medicare levy surcharge provisions will also be increased to come into line with increases in the CPI so that a low-income family member will continue to not be subject to the Medicare levy surcharge. For example, in 2009-10 a couple where one partner had an income of $140,000 and the other had an income of $18,488—which had increased from $17,794 in 2008-09 in line with the movements in the CPI—would be above the Medicare levy surcharge threshold of $143,000. However, the low-income threshold in the Medicare levy surcharge provisions would ensure that the partner on $18,488, whose income increased in line with movements in the CPI, would not have to pay the surcharge assuming the couple did not have appropriate private patient hospital cover. The higher income partner would still be liable to pay the surcharge.

In my electorate of Hindmarsh there are more than 20,000 people aged over 65. To many of them the cost of living and the cost of health care are key concerns. For them it will be welcome news indeed that the government will continue to support them and continue to respond to the needs of people who have less capacity to pay but no less a right to access quality health services and health care in Australia. I note that similar amendments have been announced in previous budgets and have been supported by both sides of the House. I hope that that will be the case this time around as well. It is important to note that if the bill is not passed by 30 June 2010 affected taxpayers might have their tax refunds delayed or might need to have their assessments amended once it has been passed.

This amendment complements the Rudd Labor government’s historic health and hospital reform program, which is the most significant reform since the introduction of Medicare. To begin with, the government is investing $1.2 billion in training and supporting more doctors, nurses and allied health professionals as part of building a national health and hospitals network. This includes an additional $523 million investment in Australia’s nurses and these investments will ensure that our health workforce meets the needs of Australians today and the growing demand for health services into the future.

The Rudd Labor government is also investing $390.3 million to support almost the equivalent of 4,600 full-time practice nurses in general practice in a major boost to primary care never seen before. For the first time, GPs in urban areas will be eligible for funding to help employ practice nurses. More practice nurses will help take the pressure off GPs by providing clinical support in areas such as wound care and immunisation, managing recall and reminder systems and patient education in areas such as reducing alcohol consumption and quitting smoking et cetera.

The Australian General Practice Network has found that practices employing a practice nurse see more than 800 extra patients each year. With GPs then able to see an extra 3.8 million patients each year across Australia, patients will find it easier to get an appointment and easier to have access to these services. Annual incentive payments of $25,000 per full-time GP for a registered nurse and $12,500 per full-time GP for an enrolled nurse will be made available to eligible accredited general practices. By 2013-14, an estimated 4,537 GP practices will receive more funding, worth $31,500 per year on average, to make better use of highly skilled practice nurses.

The government will invest $103.1 million to better support nurses working in aged-care settings and to better support the current aged-care nursing workforce. These are just some of the things. The government will provide $59.9 million in incentive payments for existing aged-care workers to upgrade their qualifications and remain working in the aged-care sector. There will be $21 million to fund an additional 600 enrolled nurse training places and 300 registered nurse scholarships over four years for aged-care nurses to upgrade their skills in recognition of the increasing frailty of older Australians in aged care. There will be $18.7 million to trial new models of care to expand and improve the role of nurse practitioners in aged care. That will be building on the 2009 budget changes to provide access to Medicare and PBS for nurse practitioners. This investment will support greater access to primary health and care services for aged-care residents. There will be $3.5 million to explore regulation of personal care workers and assistants in nursing in aged care. This will assist in considering the inclusion of personal care workers in the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for the Health Professions.

To better plan for the aged-care workforce needs into the future, the government will also provide $500,000 to conduct a research study of staffing levels, skills mix and resident care needs in Australian residential aged-care facilities and, as part of the Productivity Commission’s inquiry into aged care, examine future workforce requirements—which are very important—including the influences of supply and demand, and come up with the options to ensure the sector continues to have a suitably qualified workforce to provide the best possible care.

These measures, together with those announced in the Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill, will assist in building our workforce, including the need to continue to provide high-quality care to our ageing population and the need for our allied health professionals in rural and regional areas, which have not been forgotten either. The government will provide $34.1 million for two new rural locum programs to give around 3,000 nurses and 400 allied health professionals the time to take leave. The government will also invest $6.5 million in providing 400 additional clinical training scholarships over four years for allied health students in rural and regional areas to provide more opportunities for those interested in working in the bush. Mental health is another area that the government is looking at as a priority in this budget. In the health and hospital reforms the government has committed to supporting and expanding the number of specialist mental health nurses. These are very vital changes and additional investment in Australia’s health workforce. They are an absolute necessity, together with the changes that we are making to the legislation. These will ensure that people have better access and better services all in place through this legislation.

I also mention an announcement made the other day through the Medicare offices that are around Australia. It was quite welcomed in my electorate where we are going to co-locate services in a particular shopping centre where there is a Medicare office. We are going to include the agency of Centrelink together with Medicare in an office in West Lakes. This is part of the Rudd government’s service delivery reform plan where more offices will have Medicare working side by side with Centrelink under one roof. Many shoppers at West Lakes shopping centre and residents from around the area in my electorate will benefit from the new co-location service which will give them better access to a whole range of government health and social welfare services from one convenient location, including their local Medicare office to deal with their Medicare issues.

I suppose adding a Centrelink service to the existing Medicare service will simplify people’s dealings with government by giving them more control and better support and assistance when they feel that they need it. Importantly, there will be no job loss announcements as a result of this co-location. The site I am talking about currently offers Medicare services, which will be now joined with Centrelink services, and the number of staff is expected to increase to cater for the Centrelink services. More than 140,000 people in Adelaide’s north-western suburbs use Medicare office services. This is just another example of the Rudd Labor government delivering better health services for the people of Hindmarsh and better access to health services in and around Australia and especially in the electorate of Hindmarsh.

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

Firstly, before turning to the substance of the Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2010, I would like to link in to what the member for Hindmarsh was saying about the collocated Medicare office that has just been announced for his electorate. I would like to put on the record that we have a collocated Medicare and Centrelink office in the Shortland electorate. It replaced the Belmont Medicare office, which the Howard government closed holus-bolus in 1997. The Belmont Medicare office had been one of the best patronised Medicare offices in the area, but there was one problem with it, and that was that it was located in a Labor-held electorate.

In the 1998 and subsequent elections Labor promised to reopen the Belmont Medicare office. I made representations to the previous government about the need for it, especially for elderly residents. While public transport was good going north, it still took elderly residents quite a while to travel to Charlestown, where the Medicare office was. Alternatively, they could travel to Lake Haven on the Central Coast, but it was quite difficult for residents to travel in that direction if they did not have a car. It took Labor getting into government to deliver that vital service, that Medicare office, that the people of Shortland electorate—people living in the Belmont, Swansea, Ballantyne, Redhead and surrounding areas—had longed for. That Medicare office was snatched away from them by the Howard government. Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, when the Medicare and Centrelink office is operating in your electorate, you will find that your constituents benefit from it. The residents are finding the Medicare office at Belmont very useful. It is all about delivering services to people in the area that they live, recognising that older people need to have the services close to them and making government services user-friendly. It is about delivering to people, not about people delivering to government.

Before I go to the substance of my contribution to this debate, there is another issue that I am very disappointed to have to raise. I have to make an apology to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas. An arrangement was made between the government and the opposition for you to speak before the member for O’Connor because you needed to be in the chair. Unfortunately, the member for O’Connor did not honour that agreement. In his contribution to this debate, the member for O’Connor was quite scathing of the Rudd government’s honouring of commitments. Well, the member for O’Connor could not even honour a simple commitment made between the government and the opposition to allow the member for Hindmarsh to speak before him so he could make his contribution to the debate. This place operates on the goodwill of all parties. On many occasions, we allow members of the opposition to come on to the speakers’ list when they had not been on it. We are mindful of the fact that members of the opposition also undertake chair duty, and we need to be flexible in that. On many occasions, two government members will speak or we will let two opposition members speak, just so this House can function. Unfortunately, on this occasion the member for O’Connor did not honour the commitment. When I pointed out to him that you needed to be in the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, his comment was it was your problem. Well, I do not see it as your problem; I see it as a problem for the House. I was extremely disappointed by the member for O’Connor’s actions. I thank you and I thank the member for Braddon for filling in for you and sitting in the chair to allow you to make your very valuable contribution to this important debate.

The Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2010 is consistent with what has happened in previous years. It proposes to increase the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for singles and families and to increase 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 aged pension age will also be increased to ensure that individuals in this cohort will not incur a Medicare levy liability when they do not have an income tax liability. The increase will apply to the 2009-10 income year and later income years. Similar legislation to this has been through the House on many occasions. In fact, there has been a threshold adjustment for every year since 1996-97. There was not an income adjustment in 1998-99 because there was a negative movement in the CPI.

I believe this legislation will be non-controversial. I look to the opposition to support this legislation, because it is legislation that helps Medicare function in the way it is intended to. Medicare has been looked upon as being the greatest reform in the history of the Australian health system. It provides universal health care to all Australians and it ensures that, if somebody is sick, they will be able to see a doctor; and, if somebody needs hospital treatment, they will be able to enter a hospital. That is vitally important to all Australians.

I have to say that there has been a new reform that I think will come up to the mark as far as being one of the most important health reforms in Australia’s history—that is, the national health and hospital reform that was agreed to at COAG on 20 April. This replaces eight separate health systems with a single national health and hospital network, combining all public hospitals, all GP services and related services. It dedicates one-third of the GST revenue currently paid to the states and territories so that the Commonwealth can take majority financial control of the entire network and invest this revenue directly in health and hospitals. It puts small local hospital networks in charge and makes sure that the networks meet national standards and publish accurate performance reports. Medicare was a landmark reform. The national hospital network will be landmark legislation when it passes through this parliament.

The Rudd government has delivered on health for the Australian people. Labor has always delivered in the area of health for the Australian people, be it Medicare or the hospital network reform. I have to say that this is in stark contrast to the years of the Howard government, when the now Leader of the Opposition was the then health minister. He used to stand up in this place with rolled gold, rock-solid, ironclad guarantees that Medicare would be looked after on his watch—and he failed. He failed to look after public hospitals. He ripped $1 billion out of public hospitals. His response to the Rudd government’s budget this year is to rip another $1 billion out of hospitals. He is the $2 billion man, constantly ripping money out of health. He used to stand up in this place and say that he and the Howard government were the best friends Medicare ever had. Bulk-billing reached record low levels when he was the health minister, and the cost of healthcare became more and more expensive. The real win for the Australian people was when the Rudd government won and he was no longer health minister. Just as he is lazy and does not like economics, I remember him saying he did not like health, he was not interested in health, he found health rather boring, he had been health minister for too long and he wanted to do something different. That was obvious, and his contempt for health is obvious now, with his plan to rip another $1 billion out of health.

The Leader of the Opposition is a real risk to health. He is a real risk to the Australian people. And he is a risk that, quite frankly, the Australian people cannot afford. Contrast that to the Rudd government’s performance in the area of health, where you have a $64 billion agreement for health and hospital funding over a five-year period; $600 million in an elective surgery waiting list reduction plan—and that was for 36 superclinics. But in this year’s budget there was funding for an additional 23 superclinics. I know members on this side of the House are all competing to get funding for those superclinics. There has been $872 million in investment in preventative health; $1.6 billion to close the life expectancy gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians; $134 million in investment for the rural and remote workforce; $3.2 billion for 35 health infrastructure projects; $300 million in low real interest rate loans for residential aged care facilities; $293 million for 23 transitional care facilities—and this was agreed to all before the budget.

In the budget there was more money for health. It is phenomenal that one government can commit so much to health when the previous government ripped so much out of health. What it does is show that the Rudd government has a real commitment to the Australian people, the Rudd government recognises how important health is, the Rudd government recognises how important Medicare is and the Rudd government recognises how important it is to invest in hospitals and health services and in the training of doctors. The Rudd government also realised how important it was to respond to The blame game report that was conducted by the previous parliament and brought down in November 2006—a report, I might add, that the Howard government could not even respond to. The now Leader of the Opposition was the health minister at the time, and he did not even sit down, read the recommendations and come back with an answer to the recommendations that were included in that report. That is very different to the approach of the Rudd government, which has made health a priority. In this year’s budget the government is investing $7.3 billion over five years. There will be $470 million invested to improve after-hours access to GPs and primary care services, and that will be supported locally by Medicare.

In the Hunter we have after-hours GP access that operates out of the local hospital. It is a wonderful service. It is a service that has looked after the people of the Hunter for a very long period of time and will continue to flourish. There are also some after-hours GP practices that provide care for people in the Lake Macquarie part of the Shortland electorate. But on the Central Coast these initiatives will really be welcome because they do not have the same level of after-hours care that is available in the Lake Macquarie part of the Shortland electorate. I welcome it with open arms.

As I said, there is $355 million in the budget for 23 new GP superclinics. I might add that that is one of the areas that the opposition intends to rip money out of. The opposition does not have a grasp of on-the-ground services needed for people living in our communities. I know that the member for Paterson was delighted to see the GP superclinic open in his electorate recently, so they are welcome.

There will be $523 million invested in training support for nurses. That will be very welcome. That includes nurses working in general practice. I know that the doctor’s surgery that I attend has two practice nurses. They are very valuable members of the team operating out of that practice, and I know that the extra money will be welcomed, not only by the GP practice that I attend but by all GP practices in my electorate and, I am sure, throughout Australia.

There will be $467 million to modernise our health and hospital system, through electronic records. This is something that has been pursued for a long time. When in government the Leader of the Opposition was very supportive of electronic health records. Now that he is in opposition he is planning to ‘discontinue’—I think that is the word—the plan to introduce electronic health records. Having electronic health records is really good health practice; it is a way of ensuring standardisation across the health system. Once again, it is something that the Leader of the Opposition will discontinue and rip out of the health system.

I might stop going through all the wonderful initiatives that have been put in place by the Rudd government. They are initiatives that really take health care to a new level and will be great for the Australian people. They have been welcomed in the Shortland electorate.

I conclude by saying that I am extremely disappointed by the performance of the opposition. I have been extremely disappointed by the Leader of the Opposition, particularly when he was health minister. He was the minister who actually gave the terms of reference to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing to undertake the inquiry into health funding. It issued The blame game report, which identified chronic problems within our health system and chronic workforce shortages and made some very strong recommendations on how to address the problems that existed in the health system. The report was ignored by the Leader of the Opposition when he was in government.

The Rudd government did not ignore the report. We read it. The minister and the Prime Minister took on board the recommendations that were included in this report and went about reforming our health system—reforms that compare with the major reform of Medicare. I commend this bill to the House. I hope that the opposition will support it. It is a very important bill for those people who depend on it, and it must pass through the House by 30 June.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank those members who have taken part in the debate on the Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2010. This bill 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 $17,794 to $18,488. The level of the family income threshold is to be increased from $30,025 to $31,196.

The Medicare levy low-income threshold for pensioners below age pension age is also increased so that individuals in this cohort do not pay the Medicare levy when they do not have a tax liability. This will also ensure that these pensioners receive the full benefit of the increase in the pension announced by the government in the 2009-10 budget. The low-income threshold in the Medicare levy surcharge provisions is similarly increased. This change ensures that a low-income member of a family will continue to be exempt from the Medicare levy and Medicare levy surcharge. The amendments to the Medicare levy low-income thresholds apply to the 2009-10 year of income and later income years.

The annual adjustments to the Medicare levy and Medicare levy surcharge low-income thresholds have enjoyed bipartisan support for more than a decade. I would again like to thank those who have participated in this debate and commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.