House debates

Tuesday, 14 February 2012

Bills

Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011, Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2011, Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge — Fringe Benefits) Bill 2011; Second Reading

9:56 pm

Photo of Patrick SeckerPatrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011 and the related bills. This legislation provides yet another example of this government breaking promises to the Australian public. We all know that Labor went to the 2007 election promising that it would not make changes to private health insurance, yet here it is doing just the opposite. It is a disgrace. Not only did it break that promise in this parliament, it tried to break it in the last parliament. It is in writing. As recently as 2009 the former health minister, Nicola Roxon, said that under no circumstances would the government walk away from the 30 per cent rebate. Unfortunately, that is what we have come to expect from this government.

It is a sad time for politics, because the Australian public cannot believe a word this government says. The Prime Minister said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead,' but she changed her mind and Australia is facing a carbon tax. I ask this government: what can the people believe? These bills we are debating are proof that this government cannot be trusted. The Prime Minister seems to think it was okay to break the 2007 election promise, because the government took it to the 2010 election, notwithstanding the fact that it tried to break it in the last parliament. It was always going to happen with Labor, wasn't it, because in its heart it hates private health insurance. The Prime Minister gave her guarantee when she was shadow minister for health that the Labor Party would retain the rebate. But as Prime Minister she is doing the opposite.

I take this opportunity to call on the crossbenchers to stand up for the people of their electorates. The member for New England correctly said on the weekend that this legislation would be a devastating blow for health in regional areas. I know that, he knows that and all other regional and rural members know that. The member for Lyne spoke in this House earlier tonight and said he wanted to turn unsustainable health systems into sustainable ones. What a great goal. But I say to the member for Lyne: that is backward logic. Making private health insurance unaffordable for the majority of Australians does not make it sustainable. I am standing up for the people of Barker by standing up against this legislation, because I believe regional areas will be worse off.

Regional health relies on private health insurance. Visiting specialists to regional areas rely on both public and private patients. If the number of private patients drops off, which is inevitable, the visiting specialists will not visit anymore. Just on this fact, what does the government expect will happen if private health insurance is made more expensive? Of course people will drop out of private health. This means insurance will go up for those remaining in the system, weakening the health system not strengthening it. I would like, yet again, to highlight the Keith and District Hospital, which is in my electorate. I have told this House about Keith hospital on many occasions before but I would like to highlight a specific point. The Keith hospital is a community owned hospital which was opened in October 1954. The community donated land, crops and endless hours of volunteer work to make it happen. The Keith and District Hospital Inc. operates under the Associations Incorporation Act 1985 and is governed by a board of management who volunteer their time to serve the community.

The way the hospital is run is really quite remarkable. However, disappointingly, the hospital is sometimes referred to as a private hospital, which is wrong—it is a community hospital. The Keith hospital does not operate for a profit, the usual definition of a private hospital, yet I have heard this government refer to the hospital as private on many occasions. This is not correct. Both the state Labor government and the federal Labor government have tried to fob off the funding crisis at Keith hospital by saying that it is a private hospital. That is not good enough.

Last year I introduced a motion calling on the federal Labor government to directly fund Keith hospital and to take the funded amount away from the state. I am outraged that, to this date, the government has done nothing for the Keith hospital. My Senate colleagues introduced the same motion in their place and the motion passed, as it did in this House. But still there is no action from this government. It is an outrage. This government is defying the will of the parliament. In both houses the government let the motions pass without dissent, yet nothing has been done.

On many occasions in this House I have called on the former Minister for Health and Ageing to take action on Keith hospital. Now I call on the current Minister for Health, the Hon. Tanya Plibersek, to step up and honour the motion passed last year by both houses of parliament and to help Keith hospital. To do so will not cost the federal government or the taxpayer one cent. The community of Keith are still struggling to support their hospital, but they have been long forgotten by the Labor government, both state and federal, because Labor does not care about regional Australia and it hates private health insurance.

I want to make the point to the House that Keith hospital is a perfect example of why this bill before the House is short-sighted. Most patients at Keith hospital have private health insurance, thereby reducing the burden on the public health system. I suspect Keith has the highest rate of private health insurance in Australia—because the people of Keith support their local community hospital. I can tell you now: there are not a lot of rich people in Keith. You would think the government would reward the residents of Keith for not adding extra strain on the public system. But, no—quite the opposite.

Mr Somlyay interjecting

As the Chief Opposition Whip says, yes, they are punishing them.

On 9 February last year, I heard the government's ignorance on Keith hospital once again. Senator Ludwig, in response to a question without notice from Senator Xenophon, said:

Minister Roxon and this government understand the importance of local private hospitals to regional communities and the role they play in keeping sick and aged patients in their local areas. However, on behalf of the minister, the level of subsidy the South Australian government pays to community private hospitals such as the Keith and District Hospital is clearly a matter for the state government of South Australia.

Just like Pontius Pilate—washing his hands. I find it hard to believe that the government in charge of this country and the services in this country cannot even get its facts straight. Keith hospital is not a private hospital; it is a community hospital and should be treated as such.

If either the former or current health minister bothered to visit the Keith hospital, they could see for themselves the community that built the Keith hospital and they could meet with the board—the state minister has refused to meet with them—who, as I said earlier, volunteer their time and who are very professional in the way they do it. In fact, they do it at a cheaper rate than the state government system. I find it hugely disrespectful to the people who tirelessly give up their time for their community, for a not-for-profit hospital, to be told by this government that they are someone else's problem because they are a 'private' hospital. The Keith community is a typical regional community. Like any regional area, the wages are typically less than those in the city areas and most people are not what this government would call wealthy.

We know that 5.6 million Australians who have private health insurance are on incomes of less than $50,000. As a result of this government introducing this legislation—

Comments

No comments