Senator NEAL(9.18 p.m.) —I would like to indicate at this stage that the opposition will not be pressing their first amendment which was moved in the Senate—that is, amendment to the Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill. There is a concern in the opposition that, even though it would be fairer and more equitable for there to be indexation of the income level for payment of the levy, any further attempt to amend this bill may mean that the legislation is delayed and those who need the relief and are looking forward to it may well not receive it as soon as they might otherwise. So we will not be pressing that particular item.

In relation to the second amendment that was moved—to the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill, and the indexation of the threshold for those high income earners—the opposition does intend to continue to press that amendment. In fact, some events that have occurred since this matter first came before the Senate would lead us to the view that it is really very much the position that we feared.

I was looking back in the Hansard at some of the statements made by the parliamentary secretary. I was somewhat concerned that he may have misled the Senate—I would hope inadvertently, but potentially intentionally. He was asked by me—and pressed quite heavily on this point—whether the government had any plans to reduce the income level where the Medicare levy for high income earners would come into play. The parliamentary secretary responded on at least two occasions—and I am paraphrasing—that there were no plans to drop the threshold level. You may recall that, subsequently, a document came into the hands of the opposition that showed that our fears were extremely well-founded. That document was in a submission from the department of health to the ERC which suggested that savings could be achieved by reducing the level of the threshold and bringing the levy into play at a lower income level.

I do not make those suggestions lightly. The document that we were provided with indicated that copies were given both to Mrs Moylan and to Senator Ellison as the parliamentary secretary to Dr Wooldridge. I would like the parliamentary secretary to respond to that issue and to indicate, firstly, if the government is again prepared to make an undertaking that the threshold will not be dropped for the levy and, secondly, to explain why the statement was made previously that there were no plans when obviously Senator Ellison had in his possession this document that I refer to.