Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Kingston for her question. Fundamental, long-term economic reform is required in this country to deal with fundamental, long-term challenges such as the funding of our health system and the ageing of our population. Fundamental, sustainable, long-term reform is needed to assist families get the balance right between work and family. But these things must be sustainable. They must be done in a thoughtful way and they must be done in an economically responsible way. That is what the government is doing with health at the moment. Our health and hospitals reform plan puts in place a sustainable funding model which will deliver reform over the long term. We will get rid of the old, fuzzy responsibilities and blank cheques of the old system and replace them with a new system that is long overdue.

We know from the Intergenerational report which was brought down some months ago that health costs are expected to grow from 9.1 per cent of GDP in 2007-08 to 19 per cent of GDP in 2050. So there is a very big reform task ahead of this country—a reform task that was squibbed by those opposite when they were in government. We had two Intergenerational reports during that time and we did not get any fundamental reform at all flowing from those reports—most particularly in this urgent area of health, where the now Leader of the Opposition ripped out $1 billion from the health system, making the funding model even more unsustainable over time. But, of course, we have seen in this House today that those opposite are not interested in long-term reform. They would rather see the health system buckle under its own weight than put in place a sustainable funding model to shape up to the big challenges for the future. We on this side of the House are facing up to those challenges. A responsible opposition would have said, ‘We’ll examine this in some detail,’ before they replied. But what actually happened? Dr No over there said no even before this policy was published. He said no even before we published the proposal. What that demonstrates is that those opposite are not interested in fundamental, long-term reform. Our proposal is fully funded over the forward estimates. Our proposal is consistent with the fiscal strategy. Our proposal can be implemented over time. That is why we are going out and talking to the community about its importance and talking to the states—because the country simply cannot afford to not put this reform in place.

We are going about this in a considered way. Compare and contrast this to those opposite. First of all, the Leader of the Opposition said no. He was not even going to consider what was in a document he had not yet even read. But, of course, now we have seen further evidence of this confused and erratic approach from those opposite. What we have here from those opposite is a proposal which is going to put a large tax on business—and it has not even been run past the shadow Treasurer. It did not go anywhere near the shadow Treasurer. When the shadow Treasurer was questioned about this tax he called it a ‘windfall gain’. Not even Barnaby would be that stupid! Not even Barnaby would call a new tax a windfall gain to the business community. Let us look at what the business community has said today. John Roskam said today that ‘ultimately taxes on businesses’—whether they are big business or small business—‘are passed on to the consumers.’

See this speech in context