Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to agree to the amendment moved by the member for Fenner. In doing so I want to welcome the indexation of the threshold below which hardworking people in the electorate of Lalor do not pay the Medicare levy or Medicare levy surcharge. These changes will mean that people will not have to pay the Medicare levy before they have to pay income tax, and the Medicare levy surcharge will be increased in line with movements in CPI—both of which are good things.

It is a shame, however, that this government's only healthcare legislation coming before us worth celebrating is process legislation to ensure that the levies that are currently in place are not charged to those who are not paying income tax, and the surcharge is going to go up with CPI when people are required to pay it. It is a reality in this place that our world-class universal healthcare system, which this legislation seeks to amend, is under attack by this government. Bills like this process bill should not blind us to the reality that the government's Medicare guarantee, which we have heard so much about, is not worth the paper it is written on.

The debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2017 provides an opportunity to highlight the attacks on Medicare that we have seen since the election of the LNP government in 2013. Those attacks began with the former Minister for Health, Mr Dutton. His first attack was the GP tax. The former minister twice tried to attack Medicare by imposing a charge to be paid to doctors by members of the public when they were seeking to see a doctor. We lived through the AMA's responsible airing of their concerns around that GP tax and what it would mean to the system, to health provision and to access to health services for our communities, particularly communities like mine where bulk-billing rates were some of the highest in the country when this process began in 2013.

We saw a committed campaign from doctors around the country who responsibly aired their concerns. They were concerned that this would mean people would stop going to see the doctor. It was a huge issue in my electorate and in a lot of other electorates in the country, where people felt that this cost would mean that families would have to make choices between kids going on excursions, playing sport or going to see the doctor, and that, while the government would have made some savings by putting this impost on the public, the long-term costs to the health system would have skyrocketed.

This government, since coming to office, has shown its absolute commitment to undermining our universal healthcare system. It has consistently come up with policy ideas that seek to exclude low-income and middle-income families and the most disadvantaged from accessing our universal health care. Those policies only highlight the differences between those opposite and Labor in terms of support for Medicare, because, as we all know, the Labor Party created Medicare and the Labor Party will stand to defend Medicare at every turn, as we have done since 2013—since I joined this parliament.

The Turnbull government wants to slug everyone with a tax hike, and they come fast and furious into this chamber under many different guises. In health, under the Turnbull government's plan, someone earning $55,000 will pay $275 more tax with a levy increase that those opposite wish to put across the entire country. Someone earning $80,000 will pay $400 more on their Medicare levy. Under Labor's fair alternative, 80 per cent of Australians would be protected from a tax increase on the levy that the government would like to introduce into this parliament, and the budget would be $4.5 billion better off over the next decade. It says everything about this government's priorities that it is giving a $65 billion tax cut to millionaires and multinationals but is looking to increase taxes for ordinary workers. It is looking to give a tax cut to millionaires, while working-class Australians—middle-income Australians—will be asked to increase their tax burden through a new Medicare levy. This means that the difference could not be sharper. The Labor government will protect 10 million working Australians—many of whom are in my electorate.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2017 also works to remind us of the Medicare freeze that currently we are supposedly lifting, when in fact it is being pushed off for another two to three years, depending on the specific details. Those things, again, are putting pressure on our universal healthcare system. So, although we welcome the changes that this bill introduces, we are concerned about further changes that this government wants to make in the health space. I am reminded of my local GPs and the conversations that I have had with them about the importance of access to universal health—about the importance of ensuring that the most vulnerable can access health care and can see a GP. To do that, we need to ensure universal access.

While on the one hand this legislation ensures access for the most vulnerable in my electorate without increases to a levy, on the other hand we know what is coming. We know that there is going to be an increase. Those who are eligible to pay that levy will be hit with a hike in that levy. We know that the cost of seeing a doctor, if you are not in a bulk-billing situation, has gone up under this government. Having this opportunity to speak about health is very important, particularly for my electorate. People are in constant contact with me about the local health services. When they talk to their doctors, they are fearful that not unfreezing the Medicare rebates will put the business models of local GPs under particular pressure. They are worried that there will come a time when their bulk-billing GP will choose to change their business model to take cash and to put on charges, like charges we have seen across the country. In fact, out-of-pocket costs for non-referred GP attendances have gone up under this government across the last four years. We have seen the data on those things. In Victoria, the cost to see a doctor has gone up an average of $8. Of course, we heard from GPs what they thought an $8 impost would mean for low- and middle-income families and their ability to access health. So, in an electorate like mine, people are concerned about how long their local doctors will be able to continue bulk billing until they have to change their practice and put in a cost and follow the bulk of Australian doctors into a situation where universal health care is no longer something that everybody can take for granted.

On the other side of the health debate, I have conversations with people in my electorate on the cost of their health insurance. We have seen that private health insurance is the most expensive cost to 27 per cent of households, and this goes to the whole question of this government's handling of the health portfolio, how we are going to ensure universal access and how we are going to ensure that those families who choose to have private health insurance are not being locked out of the health insurance market system and are getting value for the money that they are spending on that private health insurance. I have sat with people in my electorate who have told me that they thought they were covered for things only to find that they had enormous out-of-pocket expenses—when they had to have certain medical procedures or tests done, they were not being covered by their private health insurance.

The whole area of health under this government is a concern—it is certainly a concern in my electorate. This process piece of legislation will go some way to protecting those in my community who have an individual income threshold that means that they do not pay income tax and therefore will not face the Medicare levy. It gives increases where that levy would kick in, and the individual income threshold for 2016-17 is $21,655, whereas in 2015-16 that income was $21,335. That will make it easier for those individuals in my electorate who are under that rate. The family income threshold for 2016-17 will now be $36,541, going up from $36,001. I am sure there are families in my electorate who will welcome that. The other side of that is that the income threshold for families eligible for the SAPTO for the 2016-17 income year will be at $47,670, up from $46,966.

Those things will be welcomed in the electorate of Lalor but there are still ongoing concerns in my electorate about this government's handling of the health portfolio, and their intentions have been made clear by their own actions in this parliament since 2013. That continues to be a worry for the people in my electorate—they are continually concerned that their neighbours, or their family, may be thinking twice about taking a sick relative or child to see a GP because they are worried about this government's intent, about this government's track record in wanting to undermine Medicare, which of course is at the core of our health system in this country.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank those members who have contributed to this debate. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2017 amends the Medicare Levy Act 1986 and the A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Act 1999 to increase the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for singles, families and seniors and pensioners in line with increases in the consumer price index. The bill provides certainty that low-income earners will continue to receive relief from the Medicare levy through the low-income thresholds. The bill demonstrates that the Medicare levy is already designed to ensure that vulnerable people in our community are in a position to receive relief from how the Medicare levy is imposed. This is a fair way to give the guarantee on Medicare, and it is a fair way to give the guarantee of fully funding the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

These changes will ensure that low-income households who do not pay the Medicare levy in the 2015-16 income year will generally continue to be exempt in the 2016-17 income year if their income has risen in line with or by less than the consumer price index. For individual taxpayers, no Medicare levy will be payable for those with income up to $21,655 in 2016-17. Single seniors and pensioners with no dependants who are eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset will not incur a Medicare levy liability if their income is up to $34,244 in 2016-17. Couples and families not eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset will not be liable to pay the Medicare levy for 2016-17 if their combined income is up to $36,541 plus $3,356 for each dependent child or student. Couples and families who are eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset will not be liable to pay the Medicare levy for 2016-17 if their combined income is up to $47,670 plus $3,356 for each dependent child or student. The Medicare levy phase is at 10c for each dollar in excess of the relevant low-income threshold until it is paid in full. Around an estimated one million individuals will benefit in 2016-17 from this bill from the increase in the low-income thresholds, including individuals who receive a concession as part of a family. The amendments to the Medicare levy low-income thresholds apply from the 2016-17 year of income.

I would also like to take the opportunity to correct the record in relation to two examples used in the second reading speech for this bill. The second reading speech stated that someone currently earning $80,000 pays $1,699 a year in Medicare levy. The actual amount is $1,600. The speech also stated that someone on a taxable income of $250,000 a year already pays $4,800 in Medicare levy. The actual taxable income is $240,000.

I trust that all members of this House not only will support this bill but also will respond positively to the forthcoming bill to help ensure the Commonwealth's National Disability Insurance Scheme contribution is fully funded. I commend this bill to the House.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fenner has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.