Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator Ludwig. Is Senator Feeney right or wrong when he said in his first speech:

In health we need to end the scandal of three billion tax dollars a year being handed over to the private insurance industry …

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In respect of private health insurance, there are, of course—

Honourable Senator:

An honourable senator interjecting—

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That could be one way of covering it. The Commonwealth government believes that a mixed model of balanced private and public health services is integral to the provision of universal access to high-quality, affordable healthcare services for all Australians. A robust health system requires strong public and private sector—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Sterle, I am waiting for order so that Senator Ludwig can be heard.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, the government does believe that a mixed model of balanced private and public health services is integral to the provision of universal access to high-quality, affordable healthcare services for all Australians. Private health insurance premiums are community rated so that all people with health insurance pay the same premium for the same product, regardless of their age, weight or state of health. This ensures that private health insurance is affordable to all Australians. I am sure the opposition would agree with the government that one of the main aims is to ensure that private health insurance is affordable. Most health insurers are already paying benefits for quit smoking or nicotine replacement programs—in fact, 22 out of 38 insurers—and 20 out of 38 insurers are paying benefits for weight loss and healthy lifestyle programs. The Rudd government is currently looking at health savings accounts. This government is being proactive in this area, unlike the coalition when they were in government for 11 long years.

The government supports a mixed model of balanced private and public health services, but we also support the public hospitals. The Commonwealth government is committed to significant funding to improve our hospital system, unlike the coalition in the 11 long years they were in government. In 2008-09, the government will boost funding under the Australian healthcare agreement to $10.2 billion, because we support a mixed model of private and public health. In addition to our commitments to health and hospitals, the government is also investing up to $600 million to clear elective surgery waiting lists, $780 million for dental health and $275 million for GP superclinics.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know all of this. Is Senator Feeney right or wrong?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition say that they know all of this. If they knew all of this, why did they not start to do some of this work when they were in government? Because they were not interested in dealing with this issue. They did not want to grapple with the fact that we do need a strong public hospital system and a strong private health insurance industry as well.

The government does support private health insurance. We absolutely support the private health insurance rebate. We have always said that we want to give people incentives to take out private health insurance, not penalise people who cannot afford it. This rebate will be provided by the government to assist policyholders and to ensure that private health insurance remains affordable for all Australians. In 2007-08, this contribution by the government will provide around $3.5 billion in assistance. The government continues to consider ways—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. In the few seconds left, I was wondering whether or not the minister would like to defend Senator Feeney’s statement.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. You have four seconds left, Senator Ludwig.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, the government continues to consider ways of enhancing the value of private health insurance for consumers. (Time expired)

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that Senator Ludwig is having such difficulty deciding whether Senator Feeney is right or wrong, can the minister provide a guarantee to the Senate and to the Australian people that the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate—or, in Senator Feeney’s terms, a ‘scandal’ and a ‘handout’—will not be discontinued?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is clear that Senator Colbeck has not bothered to listen to my answer. For the benefit of the coalition, and particularly for the benefit of Senator Colbeck, we absolutely support the private health insurance rebate, as we always have and always said we would. We want to give people incentives to take out private health insurance—note: incentives, not penalties. If you were serious about this issue, you would also ensure that the Medicare surcharge levy measure will be passed. But I do not think you are serious about it at all, quite frankly. The government considers that it is imperative to do these important things, unlike the coalition when they were in office. (Time expired)