Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise today in support of the motion of the shadow minister for ageing and mental health, Senator Fierravanti-Wells, to refer the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2012 and two related bills to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee. This legislation will impact on the federal budget and it is only right and proper that the Senate Standing Committees on Economics examine the legislation in light of the changing economic situation—and I mean the actual economic situation, not the changing political imperatives of the Labor government. When this legislation last entered the Senate, it was referred to the Senate community affairs committee, where the coalition recommended that, rather than punish hard-working Australian families, the Minister for Health and Ageing examine other means of obtaining the required fiscal savings. The coalition supported the government's attempt at fiscal responsibility, especially in light of such consistent failure over time on this key indicator of government performance.

The government is once again putting middle Australia in the spotlight and taking aim, as my two coalition colleagues have mentioned. I will not reiterate the statistics. In its majority report the committee at that time was satisfied that the government had set aside adequate funds to inform and instruct the industry and the public on how these means-tested rebates would work. But, clearly, this has not happened. If I walked down the main street of any town in Australia or asked any of the 40 per cent of regional Australians who have private health insurance how this would affect them, they would not be able to tell me. Australians need to understand how this legislation will affect their bottom line from July 2012 and the Senate needs to assure itself about the holistic impact of this legislation on the nation's bottom line.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells's motion seeks the committee to report in June, allowing plenty of time for all stakeholders to participate in a comprehensive examination in the current economic climate. The government has the numbers today to vote to halt the scrutiny, but it also has the numbers in the legislation committee to adopt a report. If it is such a great piece of legislation, Senator Feeney, let us have a look at it. What is there to hide? This is yet another example of the Labor government doing something in haste without fully understanding its impact and without thorough investigation. In fact, this government's entire time in leadership of our nation has been littered with rushed, poorly implemented policy with unintended consequences.

I am confident Australians would like to know why Nicola Roxon, the then Minister for Health and Ageing, said in 2009:

The Government is firmly committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates.

She then proceeded four months later to introduce this legislation into the House of Representatives—mixed messages from a mixed up Labor government. The government is planning to means test private health insurance rebates at the same time that it has approved a premium rise. The new federal health minister has approved an average rise in private health insurance premiums of 5.6 per cent effective from 1 April. As a result Australians will be paying more for their health insurance under this government.

Means testing families on $160,000 a year is just that—it is mean. This legislation targets the copper and the teacher, for example, in regional Australia, who contribute their taxes, who pay their Medicare levy and who are going to be slugged again. Describing these families as 'millionaires' shows just how out of touch this government is with the day-to-day struggles of working Australians. Penalising people for taking responsibility for their own health care makes no sense. Many regional communities currently have access to private hospitals and the specialists those hospitals bring to town, essentially acting as a hub for regional healthcare delivery. Typically, private hospitals in regional centres have lower occupancy rates, meaning they operate on wafer-thin margins and any erosion in those rates will be magnified in regional hospitals and likely to force cuts to service or, potentially, to cause some private hospitals to close their doors entirely. Forty per cent of regional people have private health insurance and those patients are using these private services, many no doubt relying on them for repeat admissions over the course of a treatment. For ongoing health conditions. these families can ill afford to lose these benefits.

Let us refer it to our committee for scrutiny. Senators are canny folk and I am confident there would be some great recommendations from the committee on how to assist the minister to find the savings for Mr Swan's surplus without slugging middle Australia. How typical, Labor.