Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill increases the Medicare levy low-income threshold for individuals and families, along with the dependent child/student component of the family threshold, in line with movements in the consumer price index and also for single taxpayers and families eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset, also in line with movements in the consumer price index, so they do not have a Medicare levy liability where they do not have an income tax liability. As honourable members will be aware, the Medicare levy currently kicks in for individuals at the level of $26,120. Below the threshold of the $20,896 the Medicare levy is not paid and between those two income levels the Medicare levy is 10 per cent of the excess over the threshold. Both of those amounts, and respective amounts relating to seniors, will be increased by approximately two per cent under this bill.

This bill benefits low-income Australians, which is—let's face it—a rare bill for this government to be moving and is a too rare example of decency from a government far more concerned with looking after multinationals than protecting Medicare. We will support the bill, ensuring as it does that vulnerable Australians are not disadvantaged and will maintain their access to Medicare. But it does remind us on this side of the House of the Abbott-Turnbull governments' attacks on Medicare—the GP tax, the $650 million cut to Medicare payments for pathology and diagnostic imaging, and now their plan to axe the child dental benefits scheme.

This bill will provide a small measure of tax relief for low-income earners but, let's face it, this is a government that is increasing the tax take, except at the top. If the Treasurer's latest thought bubble is to be believed, the government intends to provide not only a tax cut for those earning over $180,000 but perhaps even a modest tax cut for those earning over $80,000. The Treasurer seems unaware of the fact that this is not the median figure for earnings in Australia and that about three-quarters of Australian workers in fact earn less than $80,000. The Treasurer also seems unaware in his recent statements that under him Australian living standards are not rising but falling. While this government came to office promising to raise living standards and cut debt, in fact they have cut living standards and increased debt.

Labor is concerned about defending Medicare, we are concerned about making sure that multinationals pay their fair share and we are committed to doing something about inequality, which has risen substantially over the course of the last generation and which is now as high as it has been in 75 years. The careful work that the member for Jagajaga has done on social policy and the careful work that is being done in the area of health by the member for Throsby and others in the shadow health team are part of the more than 70 policies that Labor has put on the table. They are practical policies in education, health care, housing affordability, climate change, the sharing economy, marriage equality, domestic violence, competition policy and more.

Labor is committed to a strong Medicare. We are committed to standing up for low- and middle-income Australians. We are committed to making sure that multinationals pay their fair share. We believe that it is absolutely vital that we look after not just the big end of town but all Australians.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 1 February this year Medicare celebrated its 32nd birthday. Although this bill is a tax bill, which is dealing with the essential taxation arrangements which underpin and fund Medicare, at the heart of Medicare was a critical social innovation. That social innovation was directed at ensuring that Australia was different to so many other countries around the world where wealth inequality has a direct trajectory to health inequality. The reason why it was different was the genius of Whitlam and the genius of Hawke who put in place a system whereby we could fund a person's access to primary care through the general taxation system by establishing an additional levy upon wages—at that point in time around one per cent of wages—and ensuring that through a progressive taxation scheme we could fund the primary care and associated care needs of this country. Of course, it has expanded over the years, but at the heart of that social innovation was a scheme which made access to your GP and to other parts of the primary healthcare system available to all Australians.

This bill is necessary to ensure that the income thresholds continue to represent that progressive idea behind the scheme to ensure that we continue to adjust them, as the member for Fraser has outlined, to ensure that they cut in at exactly the right level. This bill is technical. It indexes the income thresholds below which Australians do not pay the Medicare levy or the Medicare levy surcharge. We have dealt with similar measures in previous years. It is a regular process that ensures that the most vulnerable Australians and those from the lowest end of the income scale are not disadvantaged, while maintaining their access to Medicare. Labor, therefore, supports the measures and will support it in both Houses.

The bill is a reminder to millions, maybe even to every Australian, about how important Medicare is to them. It is a devastating reminder to all Australians about the shameful record that this government has when it comes to Medicare. Unfortunately, the progressive measures in indexing the Medicare levy and the Medicare levy surcharge are well and truly outweighed when it comes to the rest of the government's record on Medicare over the last 2½ sorry years. We have lived through their attempts to dismantle Medicare through the introduction of a GP tax—marks 1, 2 and 3—and now the GP tax through the backdoor, being the freezing of Medicare rebates. When we consider the importance that is associated with this bill, we must also consider the things that are not in this bill and the other damage that the government is doing through its regressive Medicare changes.

In the time that I have left before we switch to another order of business, I would like to talk a little bit about pathology, because any one of the thousands of Australians who has needed a pathology test at one of the 5,000 collection centres around the country recently would have noticed the warnings that are being issued by the pathology sector. The pathology sector is not known for its radicalism. They are not known as radical supporters, particularly not for this side of the parliament, so to walk into a pathology collection service, or indeed many of the GP services around the country, and to see warning signs posted and petitions on the counter warning about the egregious cuts that are being made by this government, about to be implemented from 1 July this year—the reduction in Medicare bulk-billing arrangements—means people are quite rightly shocked.

At a recent mobile office in my electorate, I had person after person come to me and ask me to explain what was going on from 1 July this year and why there was a threat that they would no longer be bulk-billed for their pathology tests. Liesel Wett, the CEO of Pathology Australia, has said:

These unfair cuts would see patients having to pay for services from July this year.

She has pointed out, as constituent after constituent has pointed out to me, that if they have to pay the full up-front fee, then they simply will not have those blood tests.

For many people, not having a blood test may not be a critical threat to their health and wellbeing, but I can tell you that if you are one of the thousands of electors in my electorate who is suffering from diabetes, then having a regular blood test is absolutely critical. If laboratories decide that they have to implement this co-payment, we will see patients forgoing having their blood tests and people's illnesses will get worse. If you are undergoing a course of chemotherapy, you will be regularly required to have blood tests as part of your post-treatment care. It is these people who are going to be the most affected by these changes. As you know, if you are undergoing a course of chemotherapy then chances are you on leave from work and chances are your income has been severely affected by that illness, so it is hitting you at the most vulnerable time in your life.

For the life of me, I cannot see why the government is putting these changes in place. Constituent after constituent has said to me, 'This is a threat to us.' It is going to impact upon them. So when we look at the legislation before the House, which Labor supports—

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. Are there any statements from honourable members?