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

Let us be very clear. There is one side of this House that supports Medicare, and that is this side of the House. This is an excuse. This bill, the Medicare Guarantee Bill 2017, is an alibi, an attempt to make up for the fact that the government do not support Medicare. This bill is a lame attempt to try to get the government some vague credibility when it comes to Medicare. If this government really supported Medicare, they would not need this bill. If this government really supported Medicare they would not have tried to attack Medicare ceaselessly for the last four years. And now we see this government, having realised the political implications of Medicare and how important it is to the Australian people, vainly trying to find a way to show that they actually do not mind Medicare after all and coming up with this accounting trick. All this bill is is an accounting trick on behalf of the government.

The reason that Labor supports Medicare is that we of course created Medicare, and we created Medicare because we believe that your Medicare card, not your credit card, should determine the health care you get in Australia. That is what we believe. We believe that access to universal Medicare is one of the most important community standards created in Australia over the last four decades—and we created it. That side of the House opposed it in 1984, just as they opposed its predecessor in the early 1970s, and since then they have tried to destroy Medicare by stealth. At least John Howard had the honesty to say that he would destroy Medicare. Liberals since then have attempted to destroy Medicare but have not been honest about it. And we have seen that continue under this government, the Abbott-Turnbull government.

The Prime Minister, in his more lucid and honest moments, has admitted—even when he is ranting about text messages and scare campaigns—that the government had a poor track record on Medicare. This of course became a very big and important problem during the election campaign. So the government have attempted to step away from their previous position, with the dumping of old measures. They are slowly unfreezing the MBS. It should be unfrozen immediately and it should be unfrozen with immediate effect, but the government are just crab-walking towards an unfreezing of the MBS. That is an attack on Medicare and no number of stunts or accounting tricks will change that fact. And now they are introducing this Medicare guarantee. We are not going to give the government the pleasure of us voting against this, because it is a bill with, in effect, no impact at all. So we are not going to oppose it; we are going to point out the hypocrisy of the government.

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a gimmick.

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

And we are going to point out that it is a gimmick—I am indebted to the member for Oxley—and that it is an accounting trick which is a vainly designed attempt to divert public attention from what this government really thinks about Medicare. The Medicare guarantee is nothing more than a sham. It does not guarantee anything. It provides no policy stability, no guarantee of additional funding and no guarantee that a coalition government in the future will not make further cuts to Medicare or, for that matter, or the PBS. We have made this a key point of difference between the government and the opposition and we will continue to do so, and no number of accounting tricks or budgetary mechanisms will change that.

So let us look in some detail at what this bill actually does, because it is very interesting. You would think that, if this was really the Medicare Guarantee Bill, it would provide some form of guarantee—that it would provide some form of locked box; some form of parliamentary mechanism to say that Medicare cannot be touched or cut. It does none of those things. It does not provide any guarantee. It is a misnomer. It is a poorly named bill. It should not be called the Medicare Guarantee Bill, because it does not guarantee Medicare—which you would think would be a pretty fundamental part of the Medicare Guarantee Bill.

Currently—and this is a very important point—the consolidated revenue fund is the only fund that really exists; it is the only one that is constitutionally provided for. The consolidated revenue fund is it; it is all that exists. At the moment, authority to appropriate funding from the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose of MBS benefits is granted through the Health Insurance Act 1973. Similarly, authority to appropriate funding from the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose of the PBS is granted through the National Health Act 1953. So, basically, the way the system works now is that funds from the budget are appropriated through authority granted by two pieces of legislation directly for the purposes of MBS benefits and PBS payments. This bill changes that, so that the consolidated revenue fund will be appropriated directly: firstly, into a Treasury special account and then into a health special account and then to MBS benefits and PBS payments. So it is just a very minor difference in the accounting treatment.

It has no practical or substantive impact. It will work on an annual basis, so after determining how much is required to pay out MBS benefits and PBS payments for a year, that amount is credited to the special accounts. I emphasise there is no locked box here. There is not even a vague attempt to say, 'Future governments shall not be able to reduce the amount of funding to Medicare.' Of course they would not be able to do that—one parliament cannot bind another parliament—but they are not even attempting to do that. There are other ways off-budget that that can be done. The Future Fund, for example, is a locked box. It cannot be impacted upon without legislation, but this is not a locked box. In fact, as I said, the Constitution makes it very clear that the only fund that exists in any meaningful sense is the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Section 81 of the Constitution states:

All revenues or moneys raised or received by the Executive Government of the Commonwealth shall form one Consolidated Revenue Fund, to be appropriated for the purposes of the Commonwealth in the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities imposed by this Constitution.

So all this guarantee is is a new way of appropriating funding as is required under the Constitution.

We will have members opposite talk about how this is guaranteeing Medicare, how they have seen the error of their ways, perhaps, how the $7 GP tax was a mistake in hindsight. It was so important that the poor, old member for Warringah told the gathered world leaders at the G20 that this one this government's key priorities—the GP tax. They were scratching their heads at that one let me tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker. There will be lots of alibi-making by members opposite, but I am drawn to the evidence before the Senate estimates by Minister Cormann. Minister Cormann told the truth before the Senate estimates. Senator Gallagher was questioning him closely and she said, 'Is there a practical difference in how the MBS and PBS were funded last year and how they are going to be funded once this guarantee fund is established?'

Senator Cormann, who was trying to spin it, said: 'There is a practical difference. That is there is clear visibility of the full cost and there is clear visibility of the full funding allocation.' That is it—visibility! This should be called the 'Medicare visibility bill', if anything, because apparently there is more visibility if you have a separate account. That is no guarantee. What worries me, I have to confess, is if there is more visibility it just makes it more tempting for the government to cut Medicare into the future, that they will say: 'Look at that visibility. We will have some of that visibility. Thank you very much, and we will cut Medicare.' That is what they are prone to do at every single opportunity.

There is no difference other than so-called visibility and transparency and, as I said, the Labor Party does not oppose transparency so we will support this bill. Let us not pretend for one second that this is any sort of guarantee; it is simply a government which has undermined confidence in Medicare and has attempted to attack Medicare from the day they were first elected—against their election promises. We all remember the former Prime Minister at the stadium in Penrith: 'No cuts to health. No cuts to education. No changes to the pension.' But, cuts to Medicare are cuts to health, and that is the form of the Liberal and National parties. They go to elections promising to protect Medicare. They win elections then they attack Medicare. It is what they do. It is a bit like superannuation. They oppose superannuation at every turn, and yet they undermine it at every turn while pretending they really support it. 'We really support Medicare,' they say. 'We really support superannuation. We just attack them at every opportunity.'

Medicare has defenders on this side of the House and in the other place, and we will defend Medicare at every single opportunity. We will defend Medicare whenever it is attacked by those members opposite. It is fundamental to what we do. It is fundamentally important to our agenda in government and, when we are in opposition, it is fundamentally important to what we seek to protect and defend whilst we are in opposition. We will defend it and protect it. It is a key role for us in opposition—protecting Medicare from those opposite who attempt it at every opportunity.

I understand that people at home might think: 'A Medicare guarantee fund? That's a good thing. It's good to have a fund which actually guarantees funding Medicare. Sounds good. Why not? Let's have a fund which guarantees Medicare.' If only it were true. If only there was some mechanism in this bill which would actually say governments cannot cut Medicare, we would strongly support that because there is only one type of government which strives to cut Medicare and it is the type of government that sits opposite. Labor governments do not try to cut Medicare. This Liberal and National Party government tries to cut Medicare, as their predecessors and successors no doubt will do. And no type of accounting treatment will change that other than a genuine locked box, which says, 'Medicare shall not be cut.' But, of course, this government is not proposing that. I would love to hear the members opposite, and the member for Forde who is going to follow me in this debate, tell the House that it is going to guarantee that Medicare will not be cut into the future. We will be listening. We will be listening because if he does he will be misleading the House, which is a very serious thing. I am sure he would not do that. I think the member for Forde is quite an honourable gentleman, and I am sure he will not mislead the House by pretending that this is some sort of guarantee of Medicare. He should call it as it is. He should say that this does not guarantee Medicare. He should say, 'This is an accounting trick!' He would be welcome to say it because that is what it is. All honourable members opposite should be saying that, just as members on this side of the House will be pointing it out that when you freeze the MBS, when you impose a $7 charge to go to the doctor, when you do these things, that was the government.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who froze the MBS?

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

The member for Hume might forget that he was a member of the government that applied a $7 charge—attempted to charge to go to the doctor. And now the honourable member opposite says the freeze is all Labor's fault! A freeze for a couple of months has turned into a freeze to 2020, and it is all Labor's fault. We have been in opposition for four years. If the government really do not want to govern they should vacate their commissions and let Labor govern in the national interest. We are more than willing to take over. The government said they would not provide excuses or surprises, and all they have done with Medicare is give excuses and surprises. What we see is the member for Hume continuing to engage in this political game of saying that they are the friends of Medicare, when they are the enemies of Medicare. Medicare has never had a worse enemy than this government.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No one believes you can afford it.

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

And here we go. That's it, isn't it? I am indebted to the member for Hume. He said we cannot afford Medicare. There we go; the truth comes out. He let his guard down and he just told the truth: 'We can't afford it anymore.' That is the real truth. That is what he said. If the member for Hume thinks we cannot afford it he should say so at the despatch box as well, instead of interjecting it.

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Put it on record!

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

I think it might be on record now; I think we might have the member for Hume on record.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are making it up.

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

Now he is in damage control.

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

Order! The member for McMahon will resume his seat. There are far too many interjections taking place, on both sides. I would appreciate it if everyone piped down a bit. There are plenty of opportunities to have your say in this place, so let's keep it quiet.

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

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, for your interjection. I am keen to have the member for Hume on the record, and when he interjects and he responds it goes on the record; that is the way the parliament works. So it is there now in the Hansard.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You will never be able to afford it—

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

Here we go, again! The member for Hume is digging himself further. I say, again, that it cannot be afforded.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

because you blow all the money. You call yourself a Treasurer but you spend it all!

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

I am delighted by these contributions by the member for Hume, and I am delighted for them to go onto the parliamentary record. I am more than happy for the member for Hume to keep going. He is making a very useful contribution to the House because every time he interjects he underlines the point that the government, the Liberal and National parties, think that Medicare is unaffordable. That is what they think; that is what they believe. We on this side of the House think that we as a nation cannot afford not to have Medicare. That is what we think on this side of the House.

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

Order! The member for McMahon will resume his seat. I have already asked the member for Hume, including others, not to interject. This is the last time I will ask of that. There are ample opportunities in this place to contribute your say.

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

The last thing I want you to do is eject the member for Hume. He is making the case very strongly. I submit to you, please, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker: do not chuck him out. He is making a very useful contribution and outlining what the Liberals and Nationals really think about Medicare, that it is unaffordable. We think there are social standards in Australia, social standards that are created by Labor governments, by and large, where improvements are made to the social structure of this nation. And there have been important ones. There is the age pension, workplace safety and superannuation, and right up there amongst the most important is Medicare.

We see other nations debating health care—most notably, the United States. The United States spends roughly double what we do on health care, for poorer results. We in Australia get it right when it comes to health care, by and large. We have got it right for the last 30 years. We have got it right because of a thing called Medicare, which is efficient but caring, which ensures that Australians get the health care they deserve, regardless of their income. That is what it does, and it does so efficiently. Medicare is one of the great Australian achievements.

Other nations around the world look to Medicare and to its successes, and see that it should be implemented. A couple of weeks ago, we saw the Prime Minister in New York congratulating the President of the United States for overturning the healthcare reforms of the democratic administration—again, perhaps a little Freudian slip, unlike the member for Hume here who told us what he really thought of Medicare in those remarks on New York as well as what he thinks in his interjections. The Hansard will be very clear when it comes to the member for Hume's interjections. I would encourage him to get on the speaking list because I don't think he is on it. I think he should get himself on the speaking list, because his contribution is a very good one. I am sure the member for Forde would be happy to yield for him and give the member for Hume a go even earlier in the speaking list, because he has strong views about Medicare and its affordability.

We will take no lectures from the government when it comes to Medicare—far from it—because they do not believe in it. They do not believe in it one little bit and they attack it at every single opportunity. They have attacked it from 2013 onwards in particular. When they could not get the GP tax through, they changed the MBS freeze. Now that the MBS freeze has cost them votes and seats at the election, they crab walk away from it and they come up with this ridiculous little Medicare Guarantee Bill. They can pass their Medicare Guarantee Bill; we will not give them the satisfaction of voting against it. If it provides some transparency and visibility, as the Minister for Finance calls it, well, that is fine with us. But we know that the Liberal Party and the National Party really hate Medicare and will attack it at every opportunity.

Let me say this very clearly: we will defend it at every opportunity. We will defend it when they cut it. We will defend it when they attack it. We will defend it when they attack it in actions and in words. We will stand up for Medicare—one of the great community standards which Labor gave Australia. It took us a couple of goes. It got us in in the 1970s when we tried it. We legislated it when we came in and then they repealed it. The Labor Party managed to entrench it in the 1980s and nineties, and every time the Liberal and National Party have come after it since, we have defended it and we will defend it at every opportunity.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always a pleasure being in this House and listening to the contribution from the member for McMahon! The only people who have created angst and anxiety about Medicare have been those opposite during last year's federal election when they scared the Australian people into thinking that the coalition was going to get rid of Medicare. It was complete and utter nonsense. We have listened to 15 or so minutes of whingeing, whining and complaints, but I am pleased to say that those opposite are going to support this Medicare Guarantee Bill. In consideration of the short time before 90-second statements, I will just say that this bill is about improving transparency and improving the understanding of how Medicare is funded—where that funding is coming from and where that funding is going to. It is incredibly important that the Australian people fully understand that the government on the side of the House is about ensuring confidence in our Medicare system. The Medicare system underpins a sense of wellbeing and confidence in our community that those services will be available to Australians, as they require them on a day-to-day basis not only in going to see the doctor but also in having access to a range of vital medicines.

In this year's budget, the government committed to a substantial increase in the number of medicines that are available on the PPS, some $1.2 billion worth. It is another example that this government is committed to ensuring we provide access to the health and medical services that Australians require on a day-to-day basis. What we do not want to see is another scare campaign from those opposite. We know that that is all they are capable of. All they are capable of is a scare campaign, because they have nothing substantial or useful to contribute and deliver to the Australian people.

The member for McMahon said, in his contribution, that they would love to be back on the government benches to take care of the interests of Australians. Well, I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker: there is nothing the Australian people want less than to have those opposite back on the government benches, because last time they were here their contribution to the benefit of the Australian people was nothing. They cannot implement a program to save themselves, and we have seen again—

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) 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, and the member for Forde will be given an opportunity at that time to complete his contribution.

Before I ask for any members' statements, I might remind the House that 90-second statements generally require one person speaking at a time. Keep that in mind.