Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Health, Ms Plibersek. Will the minister update the House on the government's plans to make the private health insurance rebate fairer for Australians?

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fremantle for her very important question. Many Australians benefit at different times in their lives from benefits like the family tax benefit to help raise their kids, Austudy when they are studying and perhaps the age pension as they age. What these benefits have in common is that they are means tested so that the greatest benefit goes to the people who need them most.

The private health insurance rebate acts in exactly the opposite way. The greatest benefit goes to the people who need the least help. Take the example of a bank teller who is on $50,000 a year, a bank executive who is on $500,000 a year and the head of the bank who is on $5 million a year. They each get exactly the same rebate if they have the same private health insurance. What is even worse is that the people on the higher income are likely to have more expensive insurance, so they are going to get a greater benefit from taxpayers. If the teller cannot afford private health insurance on $50,000 a year then her tax dollars subsidise the private health insurance rebate of the person earning $500,000 and the person earning $5 million a year.

The total cost of this private health insurance rebate is about $5 billion a year, and if we do not make these modest changes that leave around 20 million Australians unaffected we will see the cost of this private health insurance rebate blow out by $100 billion over the next 40 years.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Forty years?

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, $100 billion over the next 40 years. Have a look at the Intergenerational report, Joe—you should have a look at it.

Other ministers have spoken about what is happening in Europe and what is happening in Greece and, concerned as we are about what is happening in Europe, and Greece in particular, there is a lesson to be drawn from what happens if governments are too timid to rein in runaway spending in areas like this. We need to make sure that every health dollar counts and that every health dollar matters, and we can spend those health dollars doing things like we are doing in the member for Fremantle's electorate, like creating more training places for nurses.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, can I seek some clarification? My understanding is that this bill is before the House—

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is this a point of order?

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, a point of order.

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is the point of order?

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point of order is that this bill is before the House and therefore cannot be debated currently.

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I consider the anticipation rule to have had a lot of faults. The minister is being relevant and she has the call.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The sort of investment we can see is $1.4 billion in elective surgery, doing things like upgrading the keyhole surgery facilities at Manly Hospital, or doing things like putting $650 million into GP superclinics, as in the electorate of the member for Dickson, where patients have access to GPs, specialists, nurses, pathology, X-ray and ultrasound, physiotherapy, podiatry, dietician services, psychology, audiology, chiropractic services and Indigenous health services.

We have seen a lot of slip-sliding from those opposite. They will not commit to changing this if they come back to government. They will not commit to repealing the means testing because they cannot afford it. (Time expired)

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

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's following statements, made when she was shadow minister for health: 'Labor is committed to the maintenance of the private health insurance rebate, and I have given an ironclad guarantee of that on a number of occasions.'

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Dickson will repeat the question and he will be heard in complete silence.

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

I will just wait for the clock to restart, Mr Speaker, if I may.

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The clock will restart. When the House is completely silent the member will have the opportunity to ask his question so that the Prime Minister is able to hear what he is asking, and so that she is able to be directly relevant.

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

I refer to the Prime Minister's following statements, made when she was shadow minister for health, 'Labor is committed to the maintenance of the private health insurance rebate, and I have given an ironclad guarantee of that on a number of occasions.' Further: 'I grow tired of saying this. Labor is committed to the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate.' When can the Australian people expect the Prime Minister to stand by any of her ironclad commitments?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question because it enables me to explain something he clearly has missed. There are elections in Australia generally once every three years. We had one in 2007 and we had one in 2010. I am surprised the member does not have any recollection of the 2010 election; it is the one where he was scrambling for a new seat. In that election we took to the Australian people a policy on private health insurance, and the legislation that is in this parliament reflects that policy which we took to the Australian people. Let us not have any of this absurdity from the opposition. We, in 2010, took to the Australian people a very simple proposition about fairness. We said with the growth in health costs and with the need to keep finding more money to meet the needs of health care in our nation as our population ages and as health treatments get more sophisticated—which is a great thing, but they also get more expensive—that we would need to make sure—

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister will resume her seat as there is a point of order.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Primary Healthcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance: it relates to an area of the Prime Minister's responsibility. This was a promise at the 2007 election and Labor broke that in the 2009—

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will resume his seat and has almost gone out under 94(a).

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We went to the 2010 election saying that with these healthcare costs—as a simple proposition of fairness—someone who is earning $300,000 a year does not need a young apprentice, a worker in a shop or a worker in a factory to subsidise his or her health insurance.

Opposition members interjecting—

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Prime Minister will be heard in silence by members on both sides of the House.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is the fairness proposition we are bringing to this parliament. Those opposite are full of huff and puff now about private health insurance, but I wonder what is going to be their policy going to the 2013 election, because not one of them has said that they will put this private health insurance rebate back if this parliament changes it. Huff and puff now and then come the election, because they are in such a desperate fiscal mess with the incompetence of their economic team—they know they are $7 billion behind the starting line for surplus—

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member for Dawson will remove himself under provisions of standing order 94(a).

The m ember for Dawson then left the chamber.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They will give it a very big tick. If we want to go back to the 2007 election and compare the record, that is the one in which the Leader of the Opposition was campaigning on an emissions trading scheme and carbon price. Who is not telling the truth now?

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for North Sydney will remove himself under standing order 94(a).

Mr Hockey interjecting—

Because I have said that the Prime Minister would be heard in silence and the member did not observe my ruling in that respect.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, on that ruling can I point out that there was a cacophony of noise coming from this side of the chamber to which the member for North Sydney was simply responding.

The member for North Sydney then left the chamber

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not going to revisit that. If the member does not want to follow his colleague he will sit down. The member for Shortland has the call.