Today in the AFR, the head of the private health insurance lobby group “PrivateHealth Australia” showed the industry is very worried by suggestions by The Australia Institute and others that private health insurance fees should be subject to GST.

When the GST was introduced, John Howard ensured private health insurance fees were not subject to GST, and at essentially the same time, he introduced the “Lifetime Health Cover”, which meant if you did not join private health insurance by the time you were 30 you would have to pay higher fees were you to join it later.

The problem is even with this virtual forcing of people onto health insurance, most people take out the minimum health insurance they need to qualify for the lifetime health cover, and usually this means lots of things are excluded from the cover and also you have to pay a lot of excess payments should you actually need to use it. It is not health insurance in any true sense, but it is wonderful for private health insurers.

Today PrivateHealth Insurance Australia’s CEO, Rachel David, is trying to argue that if we put a GST on private health, it would not only cause people to dump their insurance (which suggests that their product is not all that great, to be honest), but that it would hurt those on low incomes because as she writes:

“Contrary to assumptions, health insurance is not the domain of the wealthy. Australian Taxation Office data shows that only 14 per cent of people with health insurance have a taxable income over $150,000. Nearly two-thirds earn less than $90,000 – including many teachers, nurses and tradespeople. One-third earn under $50,000, including hundreds of thousands of pensioners.”

A couple of things: I’m not sure why she is using taxable income when the ATO tax stats that she cites also provide total income (ie how much you earn before all your deductions and negative gearing etc are counted). But also sorry, but her own figures actually demonstrate that private health insurance IS the domain of the wealthy.

It turns out that 15.6% of people with health insurance have a total income over $150,000. Now ok that still sounds like a small number, but the thing is, only 9.6% of all people earn more than $150,000.

And as for “nearly two-thirds” (actually 60%) of those with private health insurance earning less than $90,000, well that is less impressive when you consider that 71% of all people earn less than $90,000.

But these figures are all very confusing, so let’s just look at what percent of people in each income range have private health. Because that tells us who is actually taking out private health insurance. If it were not the domain of the wealthy, as David argues, you would expect to see about the same percentage of people having private health insurance regardless of how much they earn. Alas for David, that is not the case.

Not surprisingly, almost everyone earning more than $1m a year has private health. In fact, 90% of people earning more than $150,000 have private health insurance.

But at the other end? Most prefer to not have it. Less than half of the people who earn under $100,000 have private health insurance.

The reality is that private health insurance should be subject to GST. Right now, it means the richest get the benefit of avoiding paying GST and the public health system is denied the revenue that would come from the extra GST.

If private health insurers are worried about people not wanting their product, they should offer a better service – rather than offer a dud product that people would rather go without.

Anthony Albanese then says:

One of the things that I’ve said and there has been some reporting from the Caucus yesterday is that sometimes out of a crisis comes a moment of opportunity to actually advance forward, in a real way, advance forward for Israelis and Palestinians.

You know, when I visited a long time ago, before the Intifada, it struck me that walking around the historic streets of Jerusalem, you know, an important site for the three great monotheistic religions, people don’t feel secure when you see people’s whose guns are bigger than their height.

That is an insecurity. It has an impact on people and, you know, that is why I say for all of those as well – engaged, to engage in a respectful way, that is appropriate in a democracy.

The cause is not advanced because of some of the activities that has occurred – you know, there is no place for anti-Semitism, no place for Islamophobia, no place for hated in this country.

One of the things I’m trying to do and I wish everybody in the parliament was trying to do but I don’t need that has been the case is to have social inclusion here as well because if there is two things I’m confident of, it is one that most Australians who don’t follow this on a day-to-day basis, who don’t think this is like fighting for a team in a game, that what they want us for, innocent lives to not be lost.

For people to stop killing each other, that is what they just think when they think about the Middle East. A

nd the second thing they want is they don’t want conflict brought here. People are not responsible for the actions of either Hamas terrorist organisations or [the Israeli] government and my priority has been to try and navigate what is a very difficult situation but, you know, the young Jewish boy or girl going to the local school should not be harassed because of who they are.

They are not responsible for what is going on in Gaza. And Arab Australians or Muslims are not responsible for what Hamas did.

The media have a responsibility as well to support things that are not just backing a team in this. And I just ask you to do so.

The press conference ends.

Albanese again refers to ‘sloganeering’ when it comes to people who have been calling for accountability for Israel for its slaughter of Palestinian civilians in Gaza.

Albanese falls back on this a bit – that calling for accountability is somehow grandstanding for domestic political gain. It shows you how this conflict is viewed, because people protesting against the actions of the Russian government for instance, are not accused of grandstanding or sloganeering.

If you are going to have advanced genuinely a two state solution then you are going to need to have not just the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians for their own state but Israel needs to be recognised by the states around the Middle East.

Israel needs to be able to be confident as part of that that they are able to exists without a threat to the security, so that is what we talk about in a mature way and that is where the discussion is actually at.

Not so much some of the sloganeering that does nothing to advance the cause – nothing. If people are serious, and I’ve been serious about the rights of Palestinians and them having justice since, you know, well before I came to this place. There hasn’t been an advance.

Why has Australia not sanctioned Israel?

Albanese tries the domestic political line – that he doesn’t go for slogans – but he is pulled into the question about how sanctions would actually make a statement, rather than just the words contained in a statement.

Albanese:

They don’t call for that, that is the point. What we have from some of the campaign that has taken place is slogans. And what we are about is meaningful action. … Just like the people who call my office – because my office to be shut down once again last Friday by throwing balloons full of fish oil and staff in an office that means my staff had to abandon it, a great cost to the Commonwealth, and means no constituents can get service – that doesn’t advance it.

We do not send arms to Israel. We do not. We have sanctioned ministers in a democratic government. Putin’s regime is not a democratic government. It is an authoritarian regime. There is considerable opposition in Israel as well to the actions of the Netanyahu government. They are a democracy and we have, I think, taken appropriate action and it has been, as I say, sanctioning ministers in a democratic government. If you can point to a comparison where that has occurred, I would be happy to hear it.

Does the UK statement overnight, where the UK says it will recognise a Palestinian state in September (at the UN general assembly) if Israel doesn’t stop with its genocidal acts and commit to a sustained peace (again, I am paraphrasing) influence Australia’s decision making?

Anthony Albanese:

Well, the world is continuing to engage with each other, both informally and formally as well, there have three statements.

The world was horrified by the terrorist act and the atrocities committed by Hamas on October seven.

The world looks on what is happening in Gaza and expresses that it is unjustified – that the ongoing loss of innocent life is a tragedy. we stand by the comments that we have made.

Anyone who looks at that is producing a response from the world as well, that as I’ve said, to the Israeli President Hergog in May that Israel increasingly is losing support. We are seeing people express their opposition to those actions.

What tariff is Australia expecting on August 1 from the United States?

Anthony Albanese:

Obviously there are statements on a basis, on these issues. We continue to argue our position which is that these tariffs are unjustified, they are an active economic self-harm and if we have reciprocal tariffs on Australia then that rate should be zero. The US administration obviously has an position of tariffs on every country. We’ll continue to advocate for Australia’s position.

We move on to other issues.

Is there a timeline for Australia to recognise a Palestinian state?

What I’ve said is that it is not the timeline, it is not what we’re looking at. What we’re looking is the circumstances where recognition will advance the objective of the creation of two states. I was in contact with Prime Minister Starmer overnight.

There are time issues, of course, where we are located in the world, that makes some of that one-on-one contact, I expect to be speaking with Sir Keir Starmer in the coming couple of days as well.

I’ve said for a long time, my entire political life I said I support two states, the right of Israel to exist within secure borders and the right of Palestinians to have their legitimate aspirations for their own state realised. That is my objective. Not making a statement, not winning a political point, but achieving that. That is very much my focus. We’ve signed another statement with many nations today.

That statement, I think, has a number of things in it are important. One is the statement by the Palestinian Authority that they made on June 10 that condemns the October seven terrorist attacks, that calls for the liberation of hostages and the disarmament of Hamas…that commits to schooling reform, commits to calling elections within a year to trigger generational renewal and accepts the principle of a demilitarised Palestinian state.

That is significant step forward.

What we will continue to do is to put forward a principled position, consistent with our own unwavering commitment to the vision of the two state solution.

In an immediate sense we continue to call for a ceasefire, we continue to call for hostages to be released, we continue to say that Hamas can have no role in a future Palestinian state and we continue to call for aid to be allowed to the people of Gaza.

Every innocent life matters and when I look at the statement that was carried by this parliament, the resolution after October seven on a bipartisan basis, I think it stands quite well, the work that went into producing that statement.

Anthony Albanese says it is too cold to keep people standing outside in the courtyard for too much longer (which is the point – nothing like weather to bring a hasty ending to a press conference) and asks if there are any other questions on the issue of the social media ban.

There is.

Anika Wells is asked about YouTube bringing in The Wiggles to lobby against the ban, and Wells says it was the backroom skivvies (the entertainment company) not the actual Wiggles themselves. Everyone loves the Wiggles

Anika Wells says platforms have other ways of satisfying themselves about the verifiable age of an account holder without needing all of us to upload our personal documents to prove it.

The platforms know with deadly accuracy who we are, what we do and when we do it. They know you have had a Facebook account since 2009, so they know you are over 16. There is lots of ways this could be done and we look forward to receiving the latest and latest research from the eSafety Commissioner.

Why are social media companies allowed to publish harmful things in the first place?

Anthony Albanese:

That is a great question. Ultimately one for the social media platforms to answer. We were saying earlier in our meeting with the parents, if you put all of the content on social media in a library, you would never let your child walk in. It is on the social media platforms to explain why any child will be able to see age-restrictive content on their platform. The eSafety Commissioner will work with the social media companies to try and stamp that out.