Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2009. When I visit community groups and talk to schoolkids I am often asked questions about how the House works. People, including children, see a lot of conflict in the debates that feature on TV. When I tell them that there are quite a few piece of legislation that pass through the House that have the support of both sides they are really quite surprised. This is one piece of legislation that fits into that category. The member for Casey quite eloquently described why it is supported by both sides. It is housekeeping legislation that really maintains the status quo. And that is very important for the efficient, effective working of Medicare.

Medicare works because it provides universal health care: it provides health care to all Australians. Those people who are on lower incomes and cannot afford to pay any levy are not charged a levy. That is what this legislation does—it ensures that those people will not be charged a levy. It is all about good health care for all Australians. Medicare provides access to health care for all Australians. Australians know that they can visit their doctor when they are sick. They know that they can access health care when they are ill and that their care is determined not by their ability to pay but by their need to obtain the health care in question.

I have just received a note with some very important information on it from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, who is at the table. I have indicated to him an answer to that question. It is very important to this debate and it will determine the way the debate functions in the House. The legislation before us proposes to increase the Medicare levy low-income threshold for singles and families and the Medicare levy surcharge low-income threshold. In line with movements in the consumer price index the Medicare levy low-income threshold for pensioners below the age pension will also be increased to ensure that individuals in this group do not incur a Medicare levy liability when they do not have a taxable income. The increase will apply for the 2008-09 income year and later income years.

When I meet with pensioners and other groups of people who receive a low income they argue, and I accept their argument, that when they were in the workforce they contributed by paying the levy and that they now need to rely on the fact that they can still access Medicare without having to pay costs they cannot afford. The Medicare levy is imposed on a resident’s entire taxable income at a flat rate of 1.5 per cent. However, and this is the important point, low-income earners are not liable for the Medicare levy, consistent with the progressive nature of the income tax system. I am all sure members of this House support the progressive income tax system that we have in Australia. I am most hopeful that all members of this House support Medicare.

It is very important to the people in the electorate of Shortland, particularly in the suburb of Belmont, that following the budget they will again be able to access Medicare services within Belmont. One of the very popular announcements in the budget was the reopening of a Medicare office in Belmont. The residents in the area have fought long and hard for this. The Medicare office was closed in 1997 by the Howard government, although it was in fact one of the busiest Medicare offices in the area. As I think I have mentioned quite a few times in my contribution to these debates, the Shortland electorate is a very old area and a lot of people do not have a high disposable income. There are quite a few people who are covered by the legislation we are debating here today.

The closure of that Medicare office created enormous pressure and obstacles for people. I have submitted to the parliament in the vicinity of 20,000 signatures to petitions from residents asking the government to reopen the office. I believe I have campaigned on reopening the Belmont Medicare office at every election in which I have stood for the federal parliament. The good news is that it will finally happen. The people who put those 20,000 signatures on the petitions will soon be able to travel to Belmont or walk around the corner to the Medicare office in Belmont instead of having to travel either to Charlestown or to Lake Haven on the Central Coast.

The closure of the Medicare office was an issue because of the number of elderly residents in the area, a number of whom hold a restricted licence. Whilst the bus service from Belmont to Charlestown is quite good, it can take up to an hour to travel that distance. Because of the low disposable incomes of people, they mostly needed to go straight from their doctor to the Medicare office to claim their refund in order obtain the medicines their doctor had prescribed, and so this was an enormous issue within the electorate. Since the announcement that the Medicare office will reopen before January 2010, my office has been flooded with phone calls and I have received numerous emails from residents thanking the government for its commitment and for being mindful of their need for a Medicare office in Belmont. I cannot debate any legislation related to Medicare, particularly at this time, without putting that on the table. I am expressing the thanks and the gratitude of the people of Belmont for the government’s care and commitment to them on a very important issue.

I will come back to the legislation that we are debating. The Medicare levy low-income threshold for individuals and families will be increased in line with the CPI, as I have already stated. Similar amendments have been announced in previous budgets and have always enjoyed bipartisan support. I will finish where I started by saying that people around Australia would be surprised at the number of pieces of legislation that pass this House with support from both sides. Ensuring that people on low incomes can access Medicare without having to pay a surcharge is one thing the House unites on unanimously.

See this speech in context