Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

We are here today because the Australian people voted those on the other side into office based on the specific commitments they made prior to the 2007 election. How disappointed they now must be with the performance of the Rudd Labor government, because the bills that we are debating here today are just others in a series of broken promises by the Rudd Labor government. The Rudd Labor government made the promise to the people of Australia that, if elected to govern, they would not change the private health insurance rebate regime for the 11 million Australians who take responsibility for their own health care needs by taking out private health insurance and thereby relieving the pressure on the public system. That was the Labor Party’s promise to the people of Australia. Did they say it once? No. Did they say it twice? No. It was a little bit like Christmas when this promise was being made. Let us have a look. What did Nicola Roxon say when she was shadow minister? She had the audacity to accuse us on this side of saying that we did not have any faith that the Labor Party would deliver on the private health care rebate promise. This is what she actually said:

Federal Labor has made it crystal clear that we are committed to retaining—

sorry, I am almost laughing as I am saying this—

all of the existing Private Health Insurance rebates, including the 30 per cent general rebate and the 35 and 40 per cent rebates for older Australians.

The Liberals continue to try to scare people into thinking Labor will take away the rebates.

This is absolutely untrue.

She also said this:

The Howard Government will do anything and say anything to get elected.

How words come back to bite you. On 20 November 2007, in a letter to the AIHA from the now Prime Minister, this is what Mr Rudd said:

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 older Australians.

Federal Labor will also maintain Lifetime Health Cover and the Medicare Levy Surcharge.

But the promises did not stop there; they continued. In February 2008, as quoted in the Australian, the Prime Minister said:

The Private Health Insurance Rebate policy remains unchanged and will remain unchanged.

In May 2008, on Macquarie Radio, Nicola Roxon said:

We continue to support the 30 per cent, 35 per cent and 40 per cent rebate for those Australians who choose to take out private health insurance.

It goes on. In October 2008 in a speech to the relevant association, Nicola Roxon said this:

Private health insurance consumers will still be able to claim the 30 to 40 per cent rebate and the lifetime health cover incentives will remain in place.

And then there was another one on 24 February 2009, as quoted in the Age newspaper. She is now the health minister of this country. Nicola Roxon said:

The government is firmly committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebate.

So when is a promise not a promise? When it is given by the Australian Labor Party in the lead-up to a federal election. The fact that we are here today, yet again, debating these bills in the Senate, after they have already been rejected by the parliament, goes straight to the Labor Party and the lack of credibility that it has. All these bills show the Australian people is that Mr Rudd and the Labor Party made these promises as part of what one might describe as a contrived scheme of deception aimed at conning the Australian voters into believing one thing, when Mr Rudd knew that the Labor Party never had any intention on delivering on those promises.

Putting aside the fact that the bills that we are debating today represent nothing more and nothing less than yet another one of the broken promises by the Labor Party, if we actually look at the policy itself, the policy is fundamentally flawed and, if implemented, will actually have a detrimental impact on the people of Australia. The Labor Party tells us that the measures contained in these bills are estimated to save $1.9 billion over the forward estimates. And when one actually looks at those figures in terms of the Labor Party and its spending, one might say it is really just a drop in the bucket compared to the cash splashes that were thrown out by them, but with not one cent being spent on health. Do you know why? Because these bills have nothing to do with saving money. That is just the ruse, that is just the excuse that the Labor Party are giving. These bills represent nothing more and nothing less than the politics of envy. The Labor Party is ideologically determined to hit those Australians who are prepared to pay up and look after their own health needs. These bills represent nothing more and nothing less than Labor’s ideological push to target the so-called rich of this country.

These changes represent just another phase in the unrelenting war that the Labor Party rages against private health insurance, because at the end of the day we all know one thing: Labor hates private health insurance. But that is where the Labor Party is so wrong. The problem for the Labor Party—that is, in targeting the so-called rich—is that the damage that will be caused if this legislation is passed is going to be much more widespread. It will end up affecting those people who cannot afford to look after their own health and take out private health insurance. So much for the Labor Party telling the people of Australia that they are the ones who try to look after the battlers.

The fundamental flaw in this legislation is that, whatever money the Rudd government tells the people of Australia it is trying to save by implementing these measures, the actual effect of the policy once implemented will be the fact that the consumer, the average Australian person, will actually end up paying more either in terms of increased hospital waiting lists or increased private health premiums. People will actually drop out of private health insurance if these measures go through, and the only end result of that can be more pressure on the public health system. How is that a solution to the health crisis that this nation is actually facing? It is not a solution. It is bad policy. But, what is worse, it is bad policy based on nothing more and nothing less than an ideological war. The end result is going to be the restart of the catastrophic premium/membership death spiral of the 1980s and 1990s, when Labor almost wiped out private health insurance and almost destroyed Australia’s health insurance system. So much for fixing our hospitals.

But what is new in that regard? Labor has been an abject failure in health previously and their record to date shows that they continue to be an abject failure in health. Remember Kevin Rudd—Mr Rudd, the now Prime Minister? He was the chief bureaucrat in Queensland under the Goss Labor government, which began widespread hospital closures and the removal of more than 2,200 hospital beds. That is how Mr Rudd fixes a hospital system. He balloons the bureaucracy while actually taking away the beds on the ground. That is a Labor Party solution to solving the health problems that Australia faces! These bills are not about saving money. They represent nothing more and nothing less than an ideological war that the Labor Party wages on those people who are able to afford—and only just, some of them—to take out private health insurance. It an ideological war against those Australians who put aside money every week to take responsibility for their own healthcare needs.

It has been noted during the debate that it appears to be only those on this side of the chamber who have stood up to contribute. I note that not one Labor senator has yet fronted this chamber to justify to the Australian public why we are again being asked to push these bills through the Senate—not one member from the other side. Where is their explanation to the people of Australia as to why the Labor Party has done a complete backflip on a 2007 election promise and a 2008 promise when elected, continuing into 2009? Maybe they know that you actually cannot come into this place and defend the indefensible.