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

It is a gem. The Prime Minister promised in that letter—I repeat: promised—but you all know the Prime Minister anyway. I know you know the Prime Minister in that way, but Dr Armitage has put it in print. None of you would have the guts to do it, but he has put in print what he thinks of the Prime Minister about breaking his promises. The Prime Minister wrote to him that he would not touch the private health insurance rebate—and that is what this legislation is all about; he has touched it—and Dr Armitage said he shredded the Prime Minister’s letter. He shredded it, with the greatest of contempt. I love that line; I might frame it. What contempt Dr Armitage has the Prime Minister. He is the first person to really blow the whistle on this Prime Minister. That is all his word is worth: it ought to go into the shredder. And don’t just think that is a passing comment; that cuts deep, not just with Dr Armitage and the group he represents. That is now becoming the hallmark of the Prime Minister—just about everything he says you can now start to shred. I think Dr Armitage has started a trend: shred all the Prime Minister’s letters.

I know other speakers have said this but it ought to be put down again. This is what the Prime Minister said in a letter to the Australian Health Insurance Association on 20 November 2007, in the election period. As the then opposition leader, Kevin Rudd wrote:

Both my Shadow Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon, and I have made clear on many occasions this year that Federal Labor is committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates, including the 30 per cent general rebate and the 35 and 40 per cent rebates for all Australians.

That comment is shreddable—as it was.

But time is on the wing—I was utterly distracted by the contempt and the provocation from the other side, who just do not seem to understand the effects that this bill, for a reduction in the rebate, will have on working families directly, on people’s household income and their wellbeing and sense of security. It is going to have a direct effect on households. But overall, on a macro analysis, the reduction, along with the previous decision on the surcharge—as I said, first the stick and now taking away the carrot—is going to have a cumulative effect of reducing the numbers in private health, so you will have to revisit this issue because you will see the numbers starting to fall.

History bears this out. When we sought to increase the numbers in private health we introduced three policies: the surcharge, the rebate and the life health cover. We found that we had to have the three in place. One did not do the trick—it did not increase the numbers; two did not increase the numbers; three had to be in place before the effect started to occur. And of course it did occur: when we left office more than 40 per cent—some 45 per cent, I believe—were in private health, and that was increasing. As for the effect you are going to have, you single out that the surcharge has had no effect—yet. But add it to this and you will start to get the cumulative effect in reverse and the numbers will start dropping. That is predicted in the dissenting report in the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee’s report of its inquiry into this bill. So that prediction is there and we will be revisiting this issue.