F76/ 149
.1 ) US T KA 1.
PRIME MINISTER
FOR-PRESS 11 JULY 1976
EMBARGO: 7.15 p. m. RADIO
7.30 p. m. TELEVISION
ADDRESS TO THE NATION -MEDIBANK
Tonight I want to talk to you about Medibank. In the
last election, the Government said that Medibank would be
maintained and improved. That commitment has been honoured.
There are many areas where this Government, the Australian
Labor Party and the Australian Council of TIrade Unions,
agree about Medibank.
Everyone is included in comprehensive and high quality medical
and health care. All Australians are covered automatically.
Those on lowest incomes will make no payment they are fully
protected. Bulk billing for medical costs remains. High quality
standard ward treatment will be provided. Nedibank offers
and will continue to offer the lowest cost quality health care
for all Australians.
On these matters there is no difference in what we
propose and what Labor-* enacted. Medibank however was capable
of improvement and this is our objective.
Medibank as we all recognise is an expensive new benefit.
The Government, the Australian Labor Party and the Australian
Council of Trade Unions all recognise that it must be paid
for by a tax or levy. This Government and the Labor Party
believe that there should be a limit on that levy. The
A. C. T. U. does not and that is a major difference.
They do not accept a limit on the amount a family would have
to pay.
They would provide no further help for the lowest income families.
They would damage a large number of families where both partnersare
working, because they want each partner to pay. With
no upper limit many people would pay more than their fair
share of Medibank costs. Many of the Australian Council of
Trade Union's own members would pay more under their proposal
than Linder ours. / 2
This in particular applies to the chronically ill, who
would want to take out intermediate or private ward insurance.
The chronically ill are those who spend many weeks each
year in hospital. Many of them want some extra privacy or
comfort. Many of them are low income familes.
. Under our proposals there will be a $ 50 million a year subsidy
fo r the chronically ill. A subsidy of this kind was embodied
in the original Labor Party proposals.
The A. C. T. U. has demanded the abolition of this subsidy.
Together with other proposals of the A. C. T. U. this will have
the effect of raising the cost of intermediate hospital
ward cover.
The result of this would be that 85% of f amilies who wanted
to insure for Intermediate ward treatment-would be worse off.
I just cannot understand how the A. C. T. U. came to support that
proposal It would create grave injustices for many people
who because of chronic or long standing illnesses deserve some
additional support.
Our proposals are fair and just. Those who can afford to
pay more will do so. In addition, because of the
progressive tax scale, the better off made a further significant
and increasing contribution to health care.
Further more, our proposals provide choice. Intermediate
insurance will be available to most people. That means
you can have the doctor you want in hospital.
I have pointed to the very considerable degree of agreement
between ourselves and the Labor Party which has remained silent.
I have pointed out the considerable degree of agreement between
ourselves and the A. C. T. U.
I have also pointed to the areas of disagreement which would seem
to us to be important. -They are basically that the A. C. T. U.
has made it plain that they would not accept an upper hint
on the levy. This will hit many two income families and many would
be paying more than the cost of the service provided.
The A. C. T. U. would not accept a subsidy for the chronically ill.
They would not allow people to insure fully with private funds
We believe these~ three elements are -important. They will be
maintained. Our record showsthat we are responsive to reasonable arguments,,
reasonably put. I have welcomed the contributions of the
A. C. T. U.. on the future of the Prices Justification Tribunal
and on our industrial legislation. As a result the secret
postal ballot provisions will be better and more effective.
We have had extensive discussions with the Trade Unions on Medibank.
13
We have in fact made on major and significant changeto
allow Medibank to compete Withi the private health
funds for intermediate and private wards. This will
enable people tQ get full covek~ age from Medibank
which wasn't possible before.
I know people are asking what the precise rates for
intermediate and private ward treatment, what the upper-limit
on the levy, will be. The States had to make decisions
on charges. These have been made.
Medibank insurance and the funds will shortly announce rates.
This will remove one area of doubt I know has conce'rned
many people.
I am asking you tonight to think carefully what this strike
is really about. Ask yourselves why people have been told
to go on strike against a scheme which is an improvement on the
original Medibank arrangements. Ask yourselves why you have not
been given a say in whether or not you want to go on strike.
Is the strike really about Medibank? I have made it-plain that
the Government-is committed to support and to improve Modibaik,
to protect especially the lower income people in Australia.
The call for a national strike tomorrow should never have been made.
This is not a time for ultimatums. It is a time for getting
on with the real business of restoring prosperity to Australia,
of showing what we as a people are made of, of showing that we can
work together to make Australia the great country we know it can be.
All this strike can do is to postpone the return to confidence
and prosperity and jobs which we all want. This strike
cannot change anything. It can only harm the people involved in it.
And the people most hurt will be the lowest income people.
Those who called the strike did not think of them.
000000000