Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We often talk about safety nets in this chamber. Earlier in the adjournment debate in talking about disability pensioners getting back into work, the honourable member for Banks quite rightly described the importance of safety nets in giving people a lift up and showing them compassion.

I thought it would be interesting tonight to perhaps have a look at some of the definitions one can find in the online dictionaries that are available on the internet. Infoplease indicates that a safety net is ‘a guarantee of financial security’. Dictionary.com indicates that a safety net is ‘something that provides a margin of protection or security’, and the Encarta World English Dictionary defines safety net as ‘protection for people in difficulty: something intended to help people in the event of hardship or misfortune, especially something providing financial security, for example, insurance or welfare payments’.

Bearing those definitions in mind, I thought it was important to have a look at the Medicare safety net and at some of the statistics that indicate who is actually making use of the Medicare safety net. I think that if honourable members were to sit down and have a look at electorates without going into the politics of envy, they would say that electorates such as North Sydney, Warringah and Bradfield would be at the high end of the scale. The interesting thing about the Medicare safety net is that the electorates of North Sydney, Warringah and Bradfield are the highest beneficiaries from the Medicare safety net. In North Sydney, 14,400 people in 2006 gained total safety net benefits of $6.9 million. In the case of Bradfield, 18,294 people were paid total safety net benefits of $6.4 million and in the case of Warringah, the electorate of the Minister for Health and Ageing, it was 13,600 people for $5.9 million. The Chief Government Whip might be interested to know what the electorate of Macquarie gained out of the Medicare safety net. I think that he would understand the differences in demographics between his electorate and those I have mentioned. In Macquarie, only 4,900 people gained a benefit of $1.3 million. So where is the fairness and the justification for the Medicare safety net when there is such a disparity?

Let us look at Victorian seats. Take my seat of Scullin—2,800 people for a benefit of $1.059 million. Compare this to electorates like Higgins—13,395 people for $4.3 million; Goldstein—13,500 for $4 million; and Kooyong—11,700 for $3.7 million.

Stewart McArthur (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr McArthur interjecting

Kerry Bartlett (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Bartlett interjecting

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear a bit of babbling in the background by government members. The thing is that this is a scheme that was badly designed from the year dot—from when it was put in place in 2004. It has no upper end for out-of-pocket expenses and that is the flaw in this.

This is a scheme that needs to be investigated and the money should be put to better use. If nothing else, in a health budget that has a whole host of measures that run counterintuitively to each other, this is the scheme that needs to be looked at, because it is absolutely flawed on the basis that it does not help those that it is intended that it help. It has an upper benefit where people get just the percentage of the out-of-pocket expenses without putting a cap on those out-of-pocket expenses. Also, in fact, there is greater access to a whole host of medical and health services that gain these out-of-pocket rebates in these electorates that I have mentioned that are not based on equity but are based on specialists et cetera operating in these types of electorates. If we are really looking at things that give access and equity to proper health services, we should be looking at the Medicare Safety Net scheme—(Time expired)