Abbott, Tony, MP

Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (17:04): I thank the House for this attention and I also thank my friend and colleague the member for Hinkler for getting this crowd together to listen to my remarks. I am determined to expose the flaws in the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011 and the associated bills. But I also foreshadow that, at the conclusion of this contribution, I will be moving an amendment that the legislation in question be laid on the table for the duration of this parliament. I will be doing that because we do need an election. Minority government in this country is an experiment which has failed. Minority government has given us an administration which is incompetent and dishonest and it has given us a Prime Minister who is incompetent and untrustworthy. This is a Prime Minister who is guilty of serial betrayals. She betrayed her former leader over the prime ministership, she betrayed the Australian people over the carbon tax, she betrayed the member for Denison over poker machine reform and now, in this legislation before the House, she is betraying the 12 million Australians with private health insurance. In particular, this Prime Minister is betraying the 2½ million Australians who will face massive increases in their private health insurance premium because of her broken promise. Let us be very clear that the legislation before the chamber today is a betrayal. It is a betrayal of the clear commitments made up hill and down dale by members of the Labor Party. Before the 2007 election, the then Leader of the Labor Party, the member for Griffith, said: … Federal Labor is committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates … No ifs, no buts, no qualifications—an absolutely categorical statement. The then shadow minister for health, now the Attorney-General, said again in writing before the 2007 election: …We are committed to retaining all of the existing private health insurance rebates. Again, no ifs, no buts, no qualifications, no fine print. That is what the shadow minister said. Finally, the words of the now Prime Minister, at the time the shadow minister for health: People should have no concern that Labor will erode or abolish the 30 per cent rebate for private health insurance. No 'concern'—mark this word—that Labor will erode the private health insurance rebate. What is a means test attacking 2½ million Australians if it is not a clear erosion of this rebate? It is an absolute betrayal by this Prime Minister of a solemn commitment that she has made. She said, 'I grow tired of saying this.' Poor, poor Julia Gillard! Poor, poor member for Lalor! She grew tired of saying it. I tell you what: I know why she grew tired of saying it. She knew it was false. Time after time in this parliament before the 2007 election I would stand up and say, 'As sure as night follows day, if there is a change of government they will rip the guts out of private health insurance because Labor hates private health insurance.' Day after day, the now Prime Minister would stand up and come to the despatch box and say, 'Well, that was a lie.' Well, wrong. It was the truth, and the truth is that this Prime Minister never tells the truth. This Prime Minister is always guilty of falsehoods, of bluster and of deception. The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has used— Mr ABBOTT: Strong language, Mr Speaker, and I do not apologise for using strong language, but I will tone it down out of respect for you. The SPEAKER: The leader has cast a reflection on the Prime Minister and he will withdraw it. Mr ABBOTT: I withdraw out of respect for you, Mr Speaker, not out of respect for this Prime Minister. The SPEAKER: No, the leader will withdraw unconditionally. Mr ABBOTT: I withdraw unconditionally out of respect for you, but not out of respect for this Prime Minister. I grow tired of listening to the bluster and the blather and the deception from the Prime Minister. The SPEAKER: Order! The leader will resume his seat. Mr Sidebottom: Mr Speaker, on a point of order, you asked the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw without qualification. He did not. He continued to qualify and I ask him to withdraw without qualification. The SPEAKER: The parliamentary secretary will resume his seat. Initially, he did not. I then drew his attention to the matter and he did. The leader has the call. Mr ABBOTT: This is a Prime Minister who is incapable of honestly explaining her actions, a Prime Minister who is chronically incapable of giving truthful answers. The SPEAKER: Order! The leader will withdraw that imputation and reflection. Mr ABBOTT: I withdraw. The Prime Minister came into the parliament today and the day before and said, 'What I said before the 2007 election doesn't count because there was an election intervening.' Well, let me remind her, she tried to do this immediately after the 2007 election. It is not like she said, 'Oh, I have changed my mind and I am going to take it to the 2010 election.' She tried to break her commitment prior to the 2010 election, and what did the 2010 election give her? Did it give her a mandate? No, because it did not give her a victory. This was an election that gave her no mandate for anything because this is a Prime Minister who was selected, not elected. This was a Prime Minister who had not won an election. This is a Prime Minister who has won a negotiation, and we all know how she did it. She did it by telling people what they wanted to hear and making commitments that she knew full well that she was never, ever going to be able to deliver. Let's keep focusing on this because she came into this chamber yesterday and said, 'But there was the 2010 election.' I invite members of this parliament to carefully peruse Labor's health policy at the 2010 election and they will find not a single mention—not one—of Labor's determination to renew this attack on private health insurance. So this is a Prime Minister who has demonstrated again and again and again that she will say or do anything to save her own skin. She said no to the carbon tax to try to win an election and then she said yes to the carbon tax to stay in the Lodge. Mr Baldwin interjecting— The SPEAKER: Order! I do not need any assistance from the honourable member for Paterson. The parliamentary secretary has a point of order. Mr Sidebottom: Mr Speaker, my point of order is on relevance to the question. He has not discussed this question as of his first sentence. Thereafter, it has been an attack on the person of the Prime Minister. The SPEAKER: The parliamentary secretary will resume his seat immediately. The leader has the call. Mr ABBOTT: She said yes to mandatory precommitment to stay in the Lodge and then she said no. The Prime Minister said no when she was threatened with a revolt by the New South Wales right. She goes on to Four Corners last night and she says, 'Look, I'm always prepared to answer questions,' and we have seen in this parliament day after day a total failure of the Prime Minister to answer questions. Now, we have the private health insurance rebate betrayal. It is no wonder that there is a leadership challenge brewing. Whose side are you on? I say to the parliamentary secretary: whose side are you on Mr Sidebottom: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition is reflecting on the chair and asking you questions directly. That is unparliamentary and I ask you to bring him back to the question. The SPEAKER: While I do have, shall we say, broad shoulders, the leader has been here quite a long time and he knows he is supposed to direct his remarks through the chair. I did not take what he said personally but the leader will observe the standing orders. Mr ABBOTT: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, we know what side you are on and we know what side the member for Dobell is on and I know what side the parliamentary secretary is on— The SPEAKER: Order! I believe I understood the leader to say that 'we know what side you are on', referring to me. As the occupant of the chair, I do not have a side so I would hope that the leader is not reflecting on the chair. I would counsel him against such a course of action. Mr ABBOTT: I would never show disrespect for the chair. As members on this side of the parliament know well, the truth is that you cannot have a strong public health system without a strong private health system. The private health system of this country is necessary if the public health system is to flourish. The problem with the legislation before the House is that it will ultimately impact on every single person with private health insurance, to the damage of the private health system and to the detriment of the public health system. Under this legislation 2½ million Australians will face premium increases—of over $1,000 a year in some cases. The Deloittes study has estimated that about six million Australians will downgrade or abandon their private health insurance as a result of this means test. As better paid people, normally younger and fitter people, leave there will be a 10 per cent rise in premiums on top of everything else. This does not just affect the rich. There are 3½ million people with private health insurance who earn less than $35,000 a year, and these are the people facing a 10 per cent rise in their premiums as a result of this measure. It is estimated by Deloittes that, as a result of this measure and people leaving private health insurance, 845,000 more procedures a year will be needed in the public hospital system—a system which is already under great pressure—at a cost of $3.8 billion, which will have to be met by the states. This chamber needs to be reminded that there will not be a single extra dollar for the public health system as a result of this legislation. The government are ripping $2.4 billion out of the private system; they are not putting, as a result of this legislation, a single extra dollar into public hospitals. There will be no more dollars for public hospitals if this legislation passes than there will be if it fails—which is why members on the cross benches should, even at this late stage, reconsider their position. I know that members on the cross benches have been a little impressed by the claims of government ministers that we should not have poor people paying for the private health insurance rebates of rich people. Let me tell them about the logic there. We have poor people paying for the Medicare rebates of rich people. If it is right for this government to attack the universality of the private health insurance rebate, it would be right for this government to attack the universality of Medicare. By attacking the universality of private health, they call into question the universality of Medicare. This is a very bad piece of legislation. This is a monumentally bad piece of legislation. It is bad policy based on a lie. I move: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this bill, and the related bills, not be proceeded with until after the Parliament has met in the 44th Parliament.” (Time expired) The SPEAKER: Is the amendment seconded?