Page 3883 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 15 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Humphries: They go hand in hand, don't they?
MR BERRY: I do not think they go hand in hand. There is no need for anybody to be concerned about the public hospital system when it comes to the provision of services to the community. Emergency services are provided to the community and they are freely available. A full range of services, including high-level tertiary services, are also provided by the public sector. These are not generally provided in the private sector because of the high costs involved in providing them.
A universal public health scheme such as Medicare is a more progressive measure than simply allowing tax relief, as the Liberals would, to those who purchase their own private health insurance, some of whom may be below the income tax threshold. In the ACT we are confronted with the hundreds, perhaps thousands, who are walking away from private health insurance. That is understandable. When people sit down and analyse the public hospital system and weigh up what is available, they can see that in many cases it does not make much sense to be privately insured. In other cases, where people have to take into consideration the likelihood of some elective procedure and the interests of their work or their business, some choose to privately insure. That is up to them, and good on them if that is what they want to do.
We have to make sure that we do not attack the public hospital system as a means to develop support for the private hospital system. The private hospital system is not as good as the public system. It clearly does not provide the level of services which is provided throughout the public sector. It would provide that level of services only if we were prepared to force people out of the public hospital system. Nobody would argue that it is not difficult right now. That is why this Government is pursuing a course of action in the Medicare negotiations which will achieve for us as much as can be achieved by way of those negotiations. It is a sensible way to proceed. On the other side of the coin, we see a Federal opposition which is committed, if in government, to reducing the average living standards of people right across Australia. They are also prepared to force people to make tax contributions to the private health system to ensure its viability.
The Liberals are not fair dinkum. If they were fair dinkum they would support the free market system. If they were fair dinkum about Medicare they would support it instead of taking the approach which has been taken by the New South Wales and Victorian governments over the new Medicare agreement. Quite simply, these people are politicking and trying to play off the people's health care system for their own electoral gain. If that is the way the Liberals want to play the game, they deserve to hear the cries of shame from the community, because that is what it is all about.
The hidden health agenda of the Hewson Liberals ought to be exposed and discarded along with the other ratbaggery that is to be discarded soon. Although it will be discarded, we want to see what happens after the election. The Australian people will never trust the Liberals again after what they did in Victoria. They said one thing before the election and did something different after. The whole Fightback strategy is about to be gutted and dropped, and so it ought to be. It is a disgraceful package that would do nothing but harm to the people of Australia.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .