Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I stand in opposition to this bill, the Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy Surcharge Thresholds) Bill 2008, and concur with the statements of Senator Boyce, Senator Joyce, Senator Colbeck and others on this side of the chamber who have expressed extreme concern about the impact of this proposal on, firstly, public hospitals and public hospital waiting lists and, secondly, private health insurance premiums—the upward pressure that this will be putting on premiums across the country. Let us go to the nub of this bill before I look at some of the reports and evidence about its impact and consequences, particularly in my home state of Queensland.

The nub of this amendment bill is that it is underpinned by the ideological antagonism that the Labor Party have for private health insurance. They are fixed in their views and have historically held a position that opposes the benefits of private health insurance. This has been demonstrated by their voting record, their public comments and their policies over decades. The Labor Party are ideologically fixated on this—against private health insurance. On this side of the chamber we believe there is a need for a balance between private and public hospitals, between the private and public health systems. It is very important that we get the balance right. The Medicare levy surcharge—thanks to the former, coalition government led by John Howard—is an excellent initiative in terms of supporting private health insurance. It has delivered the goods in terms of getting that balance right. But now Labor want to try and turn the clock back; that is the impact of this bill. This bill from the Labor government is the thin edge of the wedge, and it should be opposed. It should be strongly opposed because, firstly, it has consequences for waiting lists across the public hospital system throughout the country and, secondly, it has consequences for private health insurance premiums—that is, upward pressure on premiums.

In the lead-up to the federal election, we heard the Rudd Labor government’s views that their policies would put downward pressure on grocery prices, downward pressure on interest rates and downward pressure on fuel prices. But before the election they did not say anything about this policy, which of course is going to put upward pressure on private health insurance premiums. And what have we seen with respect to grocery prices? Up. With respect to petrol prices? Up. Interest rates? Since the election of the Rudd Labor government, they have gone up. That is the nub of this bill; that is the background to it.

Now let us have a look at some of the impacts that this is going to have on Tasmania, my home state, and indeed across the country. Firstly, it is a Rudd Labor government initiative which was announced in the May budget that the threshold for the Medicare levy surcharge paid by those living without private health insurance would be raised from $50,000 to $100,000 for singles and from $100,000 to $150,000 for families. What did the government’s own figures say about the consequences of that in people dropping out of private health insurance? We know that the government’s own figures were that some 400,000 Australians would drop out, but that was a gross underestimation compared to figures from the Australian Medical Association and the Australian Health Insurance Association. The latter estimated a drop in health insurance membership of some 913,000 and an extraordinary premium increase of some 10 per cent. Battling Australians cannot afford that type of increase any day of the week, let alone over a longer period of time.

The AHIA report—a report made to the Senate committee of inquiry looking into this matter; it is a public document, and I commend it to senators and, indeed, to members of the public—says that in my home state of Tasmania these changes will increase the cost burden on the state health system by an additional $56 million, Madam Acting Deputy President Brown. I alert you to that particular report, and I draw your attention to it. I know that as a Tasmanian senator you would have an interest in it. The report also says that there will be an expected 627 extra Tasmanians on the public hospital waiting list next year. In their submission to the Senate, the Australian Health Insurance Association say that the changes will have a likely total additional cost impact on the public hospital system across the country of $2.6 billion over five years, with the Tasmanian health system to bear the brunt of the $56 million of this cost that applies to Tasmania. That is what they say in their submission, and it is very disturbing, so why isn’t the government listening? Why isn’t it responding to these concerns that have been expressed—and they are not just concerns; these are legitimate predictions of the impact of federal Labor government policy?

In an interesting twist, the state Labor government predicts a planned increase in the public hospital waiting list from 8,323 this year to 8,950 in 2008-09. So they are predicting an increase in the waiting list. That is in the state government documents—their budget papers. That is what they say—an increase of 627 Tasmanians as a result of federal Labor’s Medicare levy surcharge proposal. That is the impact. In fact, the Tasmanian state budget papers for the year 2008-09 attribute the increase in public hospital waiting lists directly to the proposed Medicare levy surcharge threshold changes. I quote from the state government budget papers:

It is anticipated demand will further increase … which is likely to result in a fall in participation in private health insurance and a consequent increase in the number of public patients.

Goodness! That is on the public record; it is in the state government papers. They are saying on the record what the consequences are, and they are very adverse and severe for Tasmania—for the public hospital system and in their impact on private health insurance premiums.

Secondly, in June this year the St.LukesHealth insurance organisation, headed by Colleen McGann—and I want to commend Colleen McGann for her leadership and the board of St.LukesHealth for standing up not only for their members but for Tasmania; I alert Tasmanian senators across the chamber to their views—estimated that the Launceston General Hospital could face up to an additional 10,000 patients under the new changes, with similar pressures to affect other Tasmanian hospitals. On a population share basis—and these predictions are very concerning—up to 50,000 Tasmanians could transfer to the public hospital system. Hospital waiting lists have grown almost 50 per cent since Labor took office in Tasmania some 10 years ago. That is why Will Hodgman and the state Liberals have it right when they call to account the performance of the Bartlett Labor government and the Minister for Health and Human Services, Lara Giddings, for, indeed, their lack of performance in this regard—for the lack of ability to stand up to federal Labor and say, ‘This is wrong; this is against Tasmania’s best interests.’

Tasmania has the poorest hospital indicators of any state in the country. This is a disgraceful performance that we have in Tasmania, particularly in waiting times for elective surgery. The report referred to by Senator Boyce, The state of our public hospitals, certainly refers to some of the indicators but not to very many of the key performance indicators. It should. But certainly that document highlights Tasmania’s performance, and it is not good. So Minister Lara Giddings needs either to get on a plane, get up here to Canberra and express her views or to express them in some other way to her federal Labor colleagues. Indeed, Minister Giddings wasted the opportunity to go into bat for Tasmania when she refused to speak out against her federal Labor colleagues on the negative effects that these changes would have on Tasmania.

Indeed, the federal member for Bass, Ms Jodie Campbell, has refused to speak out on this. Why hasn’t she spoken out? She knows the views of St.LukesHealth, which is based in Launceston, that it will put 10,000 extra people onto the public hospital waiting lists. Those are big numbers for Launceston, her local community, but what has she done? She has done nothing to stand up for the people in her local community, and this is what we need in Tasmania. We need representatives in the federal parliament who will stand up for their communities, not let them down and let federal Labor and the federal government roll over them. Of course, people are saying that she is the federal member from Canberra based in Launceston rather than the federal member for Bass and Launceston based there and representing their interests in Canberra. I think she has the shoe on the wrong foot. So it is important for Tasmania, and as I say I commend St.LukesHealth for their efforts and initiatives to show leadership in this area with regard to the adverse consequences.

The changes are being introduced despite a lack of any consultation with any state health minister. Even Western Australian Minister for Health Jim McGinty admitted it would put real pressure on elective surgery and emergency departments. He has said that on the public record. In fact, Ms Giddings refused to even acknowledge an invitation to appear before the Senate Standing Committee on Economics, which was due to take—

Debate interrupted.