This week the Senate will consider several critical issues, and it is likely it will frustrate the Government’s will with some or all of them: increases to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme co-payments; changes to the superannuation tax surcharge; changes to the disability pension and the question of excising northern off-shore islands from the migration zone. The first three are budgetary measures and the Opposition is on very weak ground for opposing them. The last is a question of overriding the exercise of regulatory power by the Minister for Immigration, Philip Ruddock. Labor, the Democrats and the Greens are on better ground here.
On Budgetary measures it is so easy for an Opposition to pick on some unpopular revenue measure and oppose it. In the case of an Opposition which can get a majority in the Senate with minor party support, it is a recipe for irresponsibility. The costs of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme are blowing out – perhaps not by the amount asserted by the Government which is based on the most recent couple of years’ figures which had some unusual increases through a couple of very expensive drugs. Nonetheless the scheme’s cost is rising fast than inflation and it seems reasonable to increase the payment made by patients. The Democrats have suggested means testing the insurance rebate as a way of making up the money. That is all very well, but the time to argue broad policy issues is election time. Last election both major parties went into the campaign supporting the rebate. It is a foolish diversion of health resources, but that is beside the point on the issue of increasing the PBS payments. Labor and Democrats should allow the increase through and fight policy questions at the election.
On the disability pension, the Government has said it will look at an amendment to its proposals highlighted by the Democrats and Labor who have pointed out some unintended consequences of the Government’s original plan.
On the superannuation tax, Labor says it has an alternative that would have the same effect on the bottom line – it would provide a cut in the levy for all income ranges, not just those to whom the surcharge now applies – those earning above about $80,000 a year. The surcharge was introduced by the Howard Government shortly after it was re-elected to help restore the Commonwealth’s weak fiscal position. Now, that position has improved there are good reasons for restoring the pre-1996 status quo. It is marginally less populist for an Opposition to oppose a tax cut for higher income earners than it is to oppose a revenue increase in the PBS, but it remains poor governance for the Senate to muck about with government fiscal measures.
On the migration zone, the Senate is on firmer ground. Reviewing the exercise of regulatory power is an important function of the Senate. Typically legislation with give the Minister power to make regulations to help administer detail. But regulations can be a vehicle for breaching the spirit of the original Act and for abusing power. To over-turn a minister’s exercise of power, the Senate disallowance motion has to be passed by a majority of 39 of the 76 senators – a harder task than blocking legislation, where 38 votes will do the job.
The over-sight of excessive use of power by the Executive is a major role of the legislature. The removing of every off-shore island from Australia’s immigration zone on its face seems a tricky exercise – one which warrants a thorough look by the Senate.