The Claim
“Tried to introduce a $7 fee for each time you go to see a GP. They claimed $7 is simultaneously large enough to act as a deterrent (thereby saving money), and small enough that it won't deter poor, sick people from getting help.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The Coalition government did indeed propose a $7 GP co-payment in the May 2014 budget [1]. The policy was announced by then-Health Minister Peter Dutton, with Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Treasurer Joe Hockey as key advocates [1]. The proposal would have required previously bulk-billed patients to pay $7 towards GP consultations, pathology, and imaging services from July 1, 2015 [1].
The government's stated rationale was twofold: (1) to provide a "modest price signal" to reduce what they called "six-minute medicine" and unnecessary doctor visits, and (2) to fund the Medical Research Future Fund [2]. Under the original proposal, $5 of each $7 fee would go to the Medical Research Future Fund, while $2 would remain with the doctor as an increased rebate [2].
The claim's characterization of the government's messaging as contradictory is accurate. The Coalition simultaneously argued that the fee would act as a deterrent to reduce Medicare costs (by discouraging unnecessary visits) while also claiming it was modest enough not to deter vulnerable people from seeking care [3]. The government explicitly stated the fee was intended to be a "price signal" to make the system more efficient [1], but also maintained it would not prevent people from accessing necessary care.
The policy faced massive backlash, was modified multiple times, and was ultimately abandoned in March 2015 [4]. Health Minister Sussan Ley announced the government would not pursue it at all, with Prime Minister Abbott declaring it "dead, buried and cremated" [4].
Missing Context
The claim omits several important pieces of context:
Exemptions were proposed. The original policy included exemptions for children under 16 and concession card holders (low-income earners and pensioners) after their first ten visits per year [2]. A modified version announced in December 2014 would have made the co-payment "optional" for doctors, reducing the rebate by $5 instead [5].
The Medical Research Future Fund connection. The government explicitly linked the co-payment to establishing what would become a $20 billion Medical Research Future Fund [2]. While this doesn't resolve the logical contradiction in the messaging, it explains the policy's structure—$5 of every $7 was earmarked for medical research rather than general budget repair [2].
No evidence of modeling. No government modeling was ever produced to justify the claim that a co-payment would make the system more efficient rather than just add barriers to care [2]. The policy appeared to be based on ideology rather than evidence.
The policy was never implemented. Despite the claim's present-tense framing, the co-payment was abandoned before taking effect. It existed only as a proposal from May 2014 to March 2015 [4].
Source Credibility Assessment
The original sources include:
- News.com.au: Mainstream Australian news outlet (News Corp Australia)
- Sydney Morning Herald: Major Australian newspaper with generally balanced political coverage
- The Guardian Australia: International outlet with center-left editorial stance
These sources are generally credible mainstream media outlets. The News.com.au article title ("Prime Minister and Treasurer don't understand their own policy") suggests critical editorial framing, which is consistent with News Corp's generally critical stance toward the Abbott government during this period. The SMH and Guardian articles report legitimate concerns raised by medical professionals and health advocates.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Yes. The Labor government under Prime Minister Bob Hawke proposed a $3.50 Medicare co-payment in the August 1991 budget [6]. This was half the amount of the Coalition's 2014 proposal, but the fundamental policy mechanism was identical—a patient co-payment for bulk-billed GP visits.
The Hawke/Howe Labor government introduced the co-payment without consultation, facing immediate backlash from the public, the Australian Medical Association (AMA), and factions within the ALP itself [6]. Medicare architect Dr John Deeble called it "unjustified, ill-advised and destructive" [6]. The ACTU opposed it, stating it was "not convinced that the [$3.50] co-payment proposal necessarily solves the problem of overservicing" [6].
The controversy was so damaging that it "arguably cost prime minister Bob Hawke the Labor leadership" [6]. The policy was suspended, modified to a reduced $2.50 charge as a face-saver, and ultimately abolished by March 1992 after Paul Keating ousted Hawke as leader [6].
Comparison: Both parties have attempted GP co-payments while in government. The Labor proposal ($3.50, later $2.50) was smaller than the Coalition's ($7), but both faced similar opposition from medical professionals, welfare groups, and the public. Both were ultimately abandoned due to political backlash. The key difference is that Labor's attempt was in 1991, while the Coalition's was in 2014—over two decades later, with significantly higher healthcare costs and greater public expectation of universal access.
Balanced Perspective
The claim correctly identifies a logical contradiction in the government's messaging: a fee cannot simultaneously be large enough to act as a deterrent (changing behavior to save money) and small enough not to deter anyone (particularly vulnerable people who need care) [3]. This contradiction was widely noted by critics at the time.
However, the claim presents only the negative framing without acknowledging:
The policy rationale: The government argued that a "price signal" was necessary to address what they called "six-minute medicine" and to make Medicare sustainable [1]. While experts disputed this rationale [2], it was the stated justification.
The research funding connection: The $7 fee was partially designed to fund the Medical Research Future Fund [2], not purely as a budget cut.
Precedent exists across parties: As noted above, Labor had attempted a similar policy in 1991 [6]. GP co-payments are not unique to Coalition ideology—they have been proposed by both major parties when facing budget pressures.
The policy was abandoned: The government ultimately listened to overwhelming opposition from doctors, patients, and the Senate, and scrapped the proposal entirely [4].
Key context: The logical contradiction identified in the claim is valid and was widely recognized. However, this type of contradictory messaging about cost-saving measures is common in politics across the spectrum. The claim is factually accurate but lacks context about the policy's research funding purpose and the historical precedent of Labor's similar attempt.
TRUE
8.0
out of 10
The claim is factually accurate. The Coalition government did propose a $7 GP co-payment in the 2014 budget [1], and government ministers did simultaneously argue that the fee would act as a deterrent to reduce unnecessary visits while also claiming it was modest enough not to deter vulnerable people from seeking care [3]. This is indeed a logical contradiction—you cannot have a deterrent that doesn't deter.
The policy was never implemented, was modified multiple times in attempts to make it politically viable, and was ultimately abandoned in March 2015 [4]. The criticism of contradictory messaging is valid and was widely noted by commentators and medical experts at the time.
Final Score
8.0
OUT OF 10
TRUE
The claim is factually accurate. The Coalition government did propose a $7 GP co-payment in the 2014 budget [1], and government ministers did simultaneously argue that the fee would act as a deterrent to reduce unnecessary visits while also claiming it was modest enough not to deter vulnerable people from seeking care [3]. This is indeed a logical contradiction—you cannot have a deterrent that doesn't deter.
The policy was never implemented, was modified multiple times in attempts to make it politically viable, and was ultimately abandoned in March 2015 [4]. The criticism of contradictory messaging is valid and was widely noted by commentators and medical experts at the time.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (6)
-
1
abc.net.au
As the Government confirms the scrapping of the GP co-payment, look back at the policy's rise and fall.
Abc Net -
2
theconversation.com
In the government’s latest “scraping away the barnacles” of unpopular and blocked policies, prime minister Tony Abbott and health minister Peter Dutton have announced they’re abandoning the plan to have…
The Conversation -
3
web.archive.org
EMBARRASSING bloopers by Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Treasurer Joe Hockey have revealed they don’t understand who will be forced to pay their controversial new $7 GP fee.
NewsComAu -
4
smh.com.au
The Abbott government's GP co-payment has been killed off for good with Heath Minister Sussan Ley telling Coalition MPs "we are not pursuing it at all".
The Sydney Morning Herald -
5
smh.com.au
Unnecessary deaths, increased illness and a blowout in doctors' fees would be the outcome of the government’s proposal to introduce a GP co-payment, medical practitioners have said.
The Sydney Morning Herald -
6
smh.com.au
The announcement of a $3.50 co-payment for people who were bulk-billed under Medicare in the August 1991 budget arguably cost prime minister Bob Hawke the Labor leadership.
The Sydney Morning Herald
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.