Senate debates

Monday, 22 February 2010

Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge — Fringe Benefits) Bill 2009 [No. 2]

Second Reading

7:30 pm

Photo of Ian MacdonaldIan Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Hansard source

No. It is Senator Conroy’s interjecting that is encouraging me to respond, unfortunately. There are so many ways that the pink batts scheme has now become a national scandal. If we wanted to save $180 million from pathology, why didn’t we think of that before we embarked upon the complete waste of money that this batts scheme is going to be? It is not just that that is a complete waste of money; it is the millions and millions of dollars that are going to be needed to put right what Mr Garrett has bungled with that program.

I do digress. We are so passionate about opposing this new tax by Mr Rudd because it will again put increased pressure on public hospitals. Any of us who have had to deal with public hospitals know how difficult it is, currently, to get in. Fortunately, I have private health insurance. I, as all of us do, continue to get complaints from constituents—ordinary people—who have some horrific stories about the queues at hospitals and very ill patients sitting in corridors and, worse still, in ambulances, until a bed is free. It is atrocious. This bill will put more people into that public hospital system and it will cause even greater problems. I know that Mr Rudd and the Labor Party hate private health insurance. It is a great shame. It is a bit of the old class warfare. It is so wrongly directed. We have to encourage people to look after themselves and save a little bit to get private health insurance. We do not need to do what is being proposed here and make it more difficult for people to achieve good health care in Australia.

We oppose this for the right reasons and on sound economic and health principles. We also oppose this because it was a direct promise—a direct, written guarantee—given a few days before the last election to swing votes. How can Mr Rudd, with any credibility, have us in the Senate tonight again debating a bill that is a direct contradiction of his written promise on this issue? I would hope that Labor senators who have an interest in good health care and honesty will cross the floor and join with us in rejecting this bill yet again and give real encouragement to the health system rather than try to demolish it as Mr Rudd appears to be doing.

Comments

No comments