House debates

Thursday, 27 May 2021

Bills

Private Health Insurance Amendment (Income Thresholds) Bill 2021; Second Reading

11:52 am

Photo of Andrew LamingAndrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I strongly support the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Income Thresholds) Bill 2021 and also deeply appreciate the words of the member for Hindmarsh, who gave a very reasonable overview of the intentions of the legislation and the important roles that PHI rebates and Medicare levy surcharges can play in this space. It's important to note that, while these freezes on indexation have been around since 2014, continuation of that for an additional two years provides certainty for policyholders while a more substantive review is done.

Australia has a unique health system where private health plays a major role. You can travel the world and not find a system like Australia. We need to recognise the work done in the late 1990s by then health minister Michael Wooldridge, the architect of these three pillars that make private health work: community rating, lifetime health cover and these PHI rebates that are now obviously tiered by both age and income. They play such an important role. To have 44 per cent of Australians covered for hospital cover and 54 per cent of Australians covered for general cover, is quite unique around the world—and today is an opportunity to recognise that.

There are great health insurers out there represented by the PHA. They play an incredible role because they note these huge increases in health costs as a result of technology, staffing costs and of course an ageing population. They feel responsible for keeping these costs under control and they're putting forward to government and to oppositions solutions to that problem. That's an important contribution, because there is no easy answer—and I'll talk more about that later.

In short, I want to note that these PHI rebates play a very important role. These aren't transfers to wealthy people; these go to people of all backgrounds. It allows them to have a choice between additional investment in the education of their children or health cover of a private variety, and they can join one of many health insurers. I think that works well. Let's be honest: this is no picnic for health insurers. It's unfair to treat health insurers as if they're having an easy run and gouging patients. Health expenses are growing worldwide. Hospital expenses, in particular, are growing at around eight per cent to 10 per cent a year worldwide. There's no easy way through this. But there is something that's very important to note—and I recognise a colleague across the chamber who, as a medical specialist, will understand this. I won't use the argument that having more people privately insured takes people off public hospital waiting queues, as that's a contentious point. But what is not disputed is that, for every person who elects to cover themselves privately, it's a good legislation to follow. I support it.

Comments

No comments