Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The word ‘vandal’ comes to mind in this debate. The Liberals are institutional vandals. The Prime Minister and his willing henchmen will destroy any institution the public holds dear. The pathetic attempt by the Minister for Health and Ageing to deal with the matter of public importance demonstrated that aptly today. He could not even mount an argument to defend this decision, except to say that the government believes in privatisation. Those opposite believe in vandalising the institutions we as Australians hold dear—and that is the entire argument they have for selling off this Australian icon. The argument is very thin on the ground.

Let us talk about cheap populism for a minute. I think it was only a few weeks ago that Alan Jones got on the radio and said, ‘Snowy Hydro—don’t go there.’ Zippity doo da! The Prime Minister was in here: ‘We’re no longer selling Snowy Hydro.’ Cheap populism at its best. It was good then; let us think about it now. The populism is saying, ‘Do not sell this Australian icon.’

And why? What is the rationale? Where is the analysis for destroying this icon? It is simply an article of Liberal faith. It is simply their faith. Today’s MPI again deals with the Liberals’ desire to sell off a vital Australian institution. This time it is Medibank Private. When asked why he sought to sell off this government controlled, not-for-profit entity, the minister for health glibly said, ‘The government is instinctively in favour of privatisation.’ And he repeated it for the 15 minutes in which he spoke before I rose to speak today. He said nothing else!

What can those opposite sell off next? We have to ask ourselves what they are going to sell next, when the last of Telstra goes and Medibank Private falls under the hammer. That is what they are institutionally interested in. That is what their faith says. That is their ideology.

Schoolkids ask the best questions. When they come to visit in Canberra, they inevitably ask the question ‘What attracted you to one side of politics over the other?’ For me, it is a simple question to answer: ‘Labor believes in government and the Liberals do not.’ Why sign up to a mob of people who have no desire to govern. They want the free market to reign. Today we are being told that it is not just the free market; it is their financial advisers who are making the decisions now. The government does not make the decisions; their financial advisers do.

I thought we were here for the social good. If that makes me an old institutionalised socialist—and I am not sure I ever have been—the people in Victoria and from my factional politics would probably disagree on that one. But I thought that was why we were all here—for social policy, to create a better society for Australians, to govern.

Those opposite have no desire to govern. Selling off Medibank Private—taking government out of that field—again demonstrates that they do not want to govern. They do not want to have a say in this vital market within our institutions—within our social fabric and, indeed, within our economic fabric. Today we see again the desire by government not to govern—to sell off an asset because that is what they do. The sale, according to the minister for health and the minister for finance, would put downward pressure on premiums and create greater competition in the health insurance sector.

We have heard a lot about that. Way back before the 2001 election, the former minister for health, a man who used to occupy my seat in this place, claimed that the government’s policy would put downward pressure on premiums. That was the policy going into that election. We have not seen any of that. We have seen premiums rise since the introduction of that policy following the 2001 election—and rise by 40 per cent, well over the inflationary rate of the time.

This impacts heavily across the board. Over 42 per cent of Australians have private health insurance. In my electorate of Chisholm, as one particular lobby group is very wont to tell me, 52,803 people, or 62 per cent of my constituents, have private health insurance. I and my family are among them. Mind you, since my son was born and has had 12 surgical procedures, I am actually making money on my private health insurance, so I am all in favour of it at this personal point in time.

My constituents pride themselves on looking after themselves. They pride themselves on the fact that they can find, on average, $4,200 each year to keep up a basic cover, including hospital cover. If you take off the 30 per cent rebate, the figure for hospital cover may be about $3,000.

That is a fair whack out of anyone’s take-home pay, especially considering the ageing demographic of my electorate. Many people are self-funded retirees or pensioners, but they still maintain their private health insurance—and they proudly maintain that health insurance, because they say that they are looking after themselves. They are ensuring that, as they get older and their health needs become greater, they will be able to support themselves and will not be a burden on their families or society. They find that money somehow. They are on fixed incomes and it is very difficult. Every time prices go up, they feel it acutely—and prices have gone up and up.

Some time ago, I asked a previous minister for health about giving the guarantee of rises. Yes, the minister actually has to guarantee rises; they do not automatically happen. Companies do not decide to do it; they have to get government approval. At one stage, I asked a question on notice and got back a great answer. I asked, ‘Do you ensure that the private health insurance providers guarantee ongoing coverage so that the current provisions they provide will still be provided after they give the rises?’ No, they do not guarantee ongoing coverage. On average, the government gives them an eight per cent rise each year and asks for nothing in return. It is just that the market dictates it! It is more than inflation.

Through this debate, we know that premiums will go up. It is not a matter of institutional knowledge or an article of faith; it has happened. It is the track record. This minister—this government—has again come out on record saying, ‘If they ask for increases, I’ll give them to them. There is nothing that will stop me.’

In my electorate there will be a disproportionate pressure—on the people within Chisholm who have taken out private health insurance year in and year out. The families in my electorate—where housing prices are fairly high and where mortgage increases cut deep into family reserves—are struggling to keep up payments on their health insurance. The mums I talk to in the playground when I go to get my kids after school are often faced with these choices. We have conversations on these matters as we stand around the playground.

Recently we had a debate about whether you keep private health insurance or get rid of it. Four thousand bucks goes a long way on your housing payment. Do you do that? But, as one mum said to me: ‘The first one has just got braces. London to a brick the next three are going to get them. Can I afford, out of our pockets, to pay for four kids having braces if I don’t have insurance cover?’ And that is extras as well. The cost is even greater than the $4,000 if you take out extras for dental cover on braces. People think about it. They know how it impacts on them. Again, this government does not care. Those opposite absolutely do not care about the pressure that this will put onto families at home.

But somehow they have gone cold on the sale. We have heard: ‘It is going to happen. Understand that. But it is not going to happen until after the next election, so you cannot completely beat us up with a baseball bat between now and then—but we will sell.’ Why have they gone cold? We have heard it is because of their financial advisers; or is it because 63 per cent of Australians say, ‘Don’t sell Medibank Private,’ or because they might be listening to people like Terry McCrann, who is not exactly a known supporter of this side of the House? He has powerfully made the simple point that, if you privatise something with a profit motive, the pressure has to go onto making those profits. Directors have duties to shareholders. Their duties state quite categorically—and, if you need any lessons on this, go and read some Hardie’s transcript—that directors have a responsibility to return a profit to shareholders. To create that profit, prices will inevitably have to go up. They just will.

I actually have an economics degree, so maybe I can come to this debate and say, ‘Yes, that is actually how it works in the market.’ The AMA has said prices will go up. Dr Nicholas Tonti-Filippini has said they will go up. This is a man who the minister relies on constantly. Nicholas Tonti-Filippini, who advises the minister on ethical issues, is opposed to the sale of Medibank Private and is a fairly heavy user of the system because he suffers from quite ill health. He says:

It is some form of right-wing idealism.

That is all it is; it is just some right-wing idealism. There is nothing to the basis of this sale. It is just their article of faith. Premiums will go up and families will be hurt. More importantly, the people they say they look after and we do not—self-funded retirees and pensioners—will be hurt. They are the ones who are probably in Medibank Private because they believed Fraser when he introduced it in 1975 and said that it was there to keep rates down. They probably believed him because they thought government owned institutions were actually there to help. We say: do not sell it, because it will only hurt the community we represent.

See this speech in context