Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, do you think she ever spoke up on that issue? They have done a backflip on that I believe, or at least they have deferred the issue.

At all levels this portfolio is mismanaged. We have yet another case of a broken promise. If they think this will not have an effect down the track, they are delusional. I am sure they know it will but, as previous speakers have said, it is the ideology of the issue that is driving the change. I want to read for those listening to the broadcast the purpose of these bills as outlined in the Bills Digest. It states:

The Bills propose the introduction of three new Private Health Insurance Incentive Tiers, so that those on higher incomes receive a lower private health insurance rebate when they purchase a complying health insurance policy, and face a higher Medicare levy surcharge if they opt out of private health cover.

This measure was announced in the May 2009 budget. Of course, it followed the May budget announcement in 2008, which also attacked the private health insurance sector. In the 2008 budget the Medicare levy surcharge threshold was increased. In this policy change, by lifting the levy charge in the 2008 announcement the government is taking away a very significant incentive to take up private health insurance. If you like, they took away the stick and in this legislation they are taking away the carrot. In the two budgets they are attacking the private sector. By taking away the stick or reducing the stick, which is the surcharge, and by taking away the carrot by reducing access to the rebate they will reduce the take-up of private health insurance. They are dismantling the fundamentals of a balanced health system.

We on this side of the chamber stand for a balanced private and public health system. We do not do it on any ideological basis. You can accuse us of that if you like—I am happy to take it up as a point of ideology. But it is quite rational. Why do you think you would have a balanced private and public health system? Because the cost of a pure public health system is too great on any government’s budget. President Obama is going to find that out. It is being debated over there in congress right now.

We on this side of the house, who had the reins in the previous government, worked that out and we produced a balanced system. We ran those principles into policy. We ran an affordable health system, an accessible health system and a modern health system with the best of care. That means you have a balance between private and public. You take the pressure off the public health system so that those most in need can access it.