Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

In continuation of my remarks in opposition to this bill, I want to confirm again that the bill will have consequences for public hospital waiting lists, and that is that they will increase, that there will be consequences for private hospital insurance premiums and that there will be upward pressure for battling Australians.

Minister Lara Giddings missed an opportunity by refusing to acknowledge an invitation. I am advised she not only refused to acknowledge the invitation but also refused to appear and give evidence in Hobart on Friday, 8 August in regard to this matter at the Senate inquiry. Why didn’t she express the views on behalf of Tasmanians to make it clear that this will be adverse to Tasmanians? The committee held hearings in every state capital; however, I am advised that the Hobart hearings were cancelled due to a lack of interest by the state government. That is very disappointing when they could have expressed a view of concern and made it very clear.

Nevertheless, let us have a look at the statistics in terms of private health insurance across the country: 9.477 million Australians or 46.6 per cent of the population are covered by private hospital cover. In Tasmania, that is 213,000 people who are covered by full hospital cover and 240,277 by some form of cover—48.4 per cent of the population. That is a huge percentage, nearly half. Private health insurers paid a total amount in benefits of $232 million to Tasmanians for the year ended March 2008, an increase of 9.8 per cent on the previous year. That is a huge injection and that is why our system is a good one with a balance between public and private. The current high numbers are due to a commitment to increasing private health insurance membership, particularly amongst people aged between 20 and 50, based on three incentives: firstly, the 30 per cent rebate; secondly, the Lifetime Health Cover for people over 30; and, thirdly, the Medicare levy surcharge.

Federal Labor now appear intent on removing these incentives one by one. Certainly, it would appear that way. The biggest losers look set to be the poor and the sick, playing on the misconception that private health insurance is a product purchased primarily by wealthy Australians. Let us have a look at the stats on that one. In reality, there are more than one million Australians with private health insurance who live in households with an annual income of less than $26,000 per annum, and 27 per cent of the overall hospital insured population—or 2.24 million Australians—live in households where gross annual income is less than $48,049. So it is not just for the rich and wealthy. In fact, the figures show the opposite. This is going to hurt the less well off, the disadvantaged and those on low incomes. The government has tried to score some cheap political points by raising the surcharge threshold, and it is these low- and middle-income households that will suffer.

The Senate Standing Committee on Economics was informed last month by the ANU’s Professor John Deeble that there would be an increase for families in terms of the premium of about $70. But, of course, the Australian Health Insurance Association estimate there could be an increase of up to 10 per cent.

These are the consequences. What do the Australian Medical Association say? Why isn’t the government listening to these organisations? They have expressed views; they are credible. The Australian Medical Association said that there will be a huge increase in the numbers on the public hospital waiting lists. They have also said that they have appealed for some sort of compensation for low-income families and people who are disadvantaged and struggling to make ends meet.

The Senate economics committee has had inquiries around the country and has discovered that single, young, healthy people will be the first to leave private health insurance. However, families and pensioners are soon likely to follow as they fail to be able to meet the rising costs from petrol prices, grocery prices and making ends meet across the board. So, despite the estimated additional strain on the public health system, the Labor government is yet to announce any additional funding to assist with the increased burden on the public hospital system. Isn’t that interesting? They know the facts—they are faced with them—but they are refusing to acknowledge or respond to them.

In conclusion, you can thank the coalition for the system that we have, the success of the private health insurance premium and the balance that is struck between public and private health in this country, and you can be assured that federal Labor are ideologically antagonistic to private health insurance. It is disappointing that they are doing this. That really is the underpinning behind this initiative that they want to foist on the Australian people, which will be bad for public hospitals, lengthen the waiting list, put upward pressure on private health insurance premiums and be particularly disadvantageous to Tasmania.