Division
Jill Hall It is a pleasure to follow the member for Lyons because it was interesting to hear his contribution to this debate, a contribution that I found quite phenomenal when he talked about this particular piece of legislation. The legislation leads to the indexation of thresholds. That will occur annually and is aimed to start on 20 September this year. That indexation is going to be based on the consumer price index. The member for Lyons was very keen to celebrate this legislation and talked about how this will extend benefits to seniors who are now ineligible. He talked about the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. He talked about 'bulk-billing by GPs'—those were the words he used. I felt that it was really important that I raise that issue in connection with this debate, coming off the words that he used. This budget has been debated and discussed in this House, throughout every media outlet in Australia and certainly in my electorate. In this budget there is a move to end bulk-billing and to force those people going to visit a doctor to pay a GP tax. On the one hand, we have the member for Lyons celebrating the fact that 1,020 seniors in his electorate will be eligible to go and see bulk-billing GPs with their card; on the other hand, he stands up in this parliament and supports a GP tax and the fact that the Abbott government in this place is seeking to end bulk-billing as we know it today and force people to pay co-payments. Those seniors that he believes will be able to access bulk-billing will be accessing a second-class form of bulk-billing. That is what he is arguing for. The other issue he touched on was the PBS. It was only last night that we passed legislation in this House to increase co-payments paid by people when they have their prescriptions filled, be they concessional or be they for people who pay the full amount for their prescriptions. I found that contribution from the member for Lyons somewhat convoluted and it showed a lack of understanding o
House of Representatives, 2014-07-17. affirmative: ayes 81, noes 46.
Question
Jill Hall It is a pleasure to follow the member for Lyons because it was interesting to hear his contribution to this debate, a contribution that I found quite phenomenal when he talked about this particular piece of legislation. The legislation leads to the indexation of thresholds. That will occur annually and is aimed to start on 20 September this year. That indexation is going to be based on the consumer price index. The member for Lyons was very keen to celebrate this legislation and talked about how this will extend benefits to seniors who are now ineligible. He talked about the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. He talked about 'bulk-billing by GPs'—those were the words he used. I felt that it was really important that I raise that issue in connection with this debate, coming off the words that he used. This budget has been debated and discussed in this House, throughout every media outlet in Australia and certainly in my electorate. In this budget there is a move to end bulk-billing and to force those people going to visit a doctor to pay a GP tax. On the one hand, we have the member for Lyons celebrating the fact that 1,020 seniors in his electorate will be eligible to go and see bulk-billing GPs with their card; on the other hand, he stands up in this parliament and supports a GP tax and the fact that the Abbott government in this place is seeking to end bulk-billing as we know it today and force people to pay co-payments. Those seniors that he believes will be able to access bulk-billing will be accessing a second-class form of bulk-billing. That is what he is arguing for. The other issue he touched on was the PBS. It was only last night that we passed legislation in this House to increase co-payments paid by people when they have their prescriptions filled, be they concessional or be they for people who pay the full amount for their prescriptions. I found that contribution from the member for Lyons somewhat convoluted and it showed a lack of understanding o
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.