Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

This is a very similar amendment to the second reading amendment I moved on behalf of the Australian Greens which said that if Medibank Private were sold it was the view of the Greens that the money should be spent on public health care. That was slightly different in that this amendment indicates health care in general. The intention of the Greens is that, if Medibank Private is sold, we would like the money spent on public health care. We think that position is covered in this amendment and therefore, whilst our position was slightly more refined than that, we are of a view to support this amendment.

Question negatived.

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 5161:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 13), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Private Health Insurance Incentives Act 1998

Taxation Laws Amendment (Private Health Insurance) Act 1998

These two amendments are amendments that the Senate has seen on several occasions from me. They are amendments that are designed to abolish the private health insurance rebate. It has been a long-held position of the Australian Greens that the over $3 billion of public funds each year that the government puts into subsidising those Australians who have private health insurance—predominantly wealthier Australians, incidentally, in Liberal held electorates—should not be going to subsidising that private health insurance. The Greens say that over $3 billion of public funds each year should be invested in our public health system.

I have spoken on many occasions about the reasons why the Greens are supportive of our public health system and about the way we recognise, as indeed the community recognises, that it is the best and most efficient way to ensure that health care is delivered to those Australians who most need it, regardless of their capacity to pay. There are many examples that I can go into where we have a more heavily privatised system that relies on private insurance. We see in the United States the outcomes of that. People’s health is not looked after as well as it is in this country when you compare Australia and the United States. And we spend far less money than they do in the United States, where they have gone down this path. All of those figures are there in recent studies by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and recent OECD reports, all of which point to the inefficiencies of the US style privatised healthcare system and why the Australian Greens defend our public healthcare system.

I have spoken previously today about the challenge this presents for the opposition and for the new team in particular. When Mr Rudd speaks about social justice, this is a key and fundamental social justice issue: should we be investing public funds in the public healthcare system, or should we be pouring public funds into the pockets of insurance companies in such a way that the poorer members of Australian society—incidentally, many of whom are in Labor held electorates—end up subsidising the private health insurance of those people who live in wealthier Liberal held electorates such as that of the health minister, Mr Abbott? I have indicated this before.

One aspect of this that truly astounds me is the level of subsidy that is provided to the private health insurance industry. There is no other industry that is given this level of government support. We see subsidies across the board going to a whole range of different industries. The Greens would support substantial subsidies going from this government to the renewable energy sector, for example. But what we see is that the subsidies from this government to the private health insurance sector are above all of the other subsidies that exist. For no other industry does the government use its taxation system to penalise people who do not take out the services of that particular industry. That is what this government does. This government, through its taxation system, chooses to penalise people who do not take out private health insurance. There may be a variety of reasons—perhaps their support for the public health system.

There are subsidies and there are subsidies, but this is the mother of all subsidies. The government is saying, ‘Not only will we give you a 30 per cent private health insurance rebate’—that is the over $3 billion per annum that this government takes from the public and puts into the hands of private health insurance, on top of a range of other subsidies that come from this federal government—‘but we will use our taxation system such that, if people do not take out the services, we will penalise them through the taxation system.’ There is no other industry I know of where that occurs. If Senator Minchin would like to enlighten me about others, I would be interested to hear that. But, in looking at this issue, as I have been for some time, I cannot think of another industry that gets that level of support from the federal government. I think that is just a clear indication of this government’s support for the private health sector and its lack of support for the public health sector. We see it time and time again in the way in which this government operates.

Last month there was an article in the Sydney Morning Herald indicating that this government had approved a six per cent rise in private health insurance premiums in the past year whilst only allocating a 2.1 per cent increase to the public health system. The same article went on to point out that private patients received benefits worth an extra $500 million from the federal government compared with its contribution to public hospitals. That was according to the former federal health chief Dr Stephen Duckett. So I think it is quite clear and on the record that this government supports the private health sector and we do not see anywhere near the level of support that should be there, in the view of the Greens, for the public health system. The Greens position is also clear: we want to see the federal government taking on its responsibility in investing in public services in this country, and in this instance we are talking about the public healthcare system.

The challenge is there for the opposition and what they choose to do with this over $3 billion of public funds each year—we are not talking a one-off; we are talking each year. This whole sale of Medibank Private is worth $2 billion—that is the figure people are bandying about. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the over $3 billion every year that this government—and the current position of the opposition is the same—puts into the pockets of the insurers, the wealthier Australians in Liberal held electorates who take out private health insurance, and that is subsidised through the contributions of taxpayers across the board.

So I have moved these two amendments together. What these amendments do is inject some social justice into the system. We do not want to see a redistribution of wealth from all Australians to the wealthier Australians who choose to take out private health insurance; we want to see a good public health system. It is that simple. If we were looking to fund the public health system further, and of course we all are—well, on this side of the chamber we are—then, looking around, the elephant in the room is that over $3 billion. It is health money. It is being collected by the government and it is not being spent on health services. And it is not being spent on health services in the sector that delivers them most efficiently and to all Australians—that is, our public health system, a public health system that we should be supporting and where we want to see quality services.

One would anticipate that a party with a new leader talking about the values of social justice would see this as a fundamental social justice issue: do we want to invest in public health care or not? Here is the opportunity for the opposition to say: ‘Yes, we do. Let’s take this money that the public pay to the government for investing in public services and put it into public health care.’ That is the option today and I call on all senators to support it.