Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

Let me just say again to the member for Gellibrand: how on earth can you trump a $385 million plan with a $290 million plan? How on earth can you trump a plan that covers 450 dental items with a plan that covers just one dental item, a consultation alone? It does not cover dentures, it does not cover fillings, it does not cover extractions and it does not cover root canal work—it does not cover all the things that people with poor dental health need. So how can her plan, which covers just one item, trump a plan that covers 450 items? How can you trump a plan that is ongoing, as the government’s plan is, with one which will terminate after just three years? How can you trump a plan which is demand driven, as the government’s plan is, with one which is budget limited?

No, the member for Gellibrand has got herself into a real mess here. She would have been much better off just keeping her counsel. If she really does have something up her sleeve, something in addition for dental health, she should have saved what she announced today for then and given us a full dental health plan rather than this pathetic, puny effort which has been announced today and just makes members opposite look like they are not serious about Medicare, not serious about dental health and do not really understand what they are talking about.

I accept that there are many people in this country who would like better dental care. I have no reason to doubt the figures that the member opposite quotes of 650,000 people on public dental waiting lists around Australia. I am aware, thanks to my friend and colleague the New South Wales member for North Shore and shadow minister for health in the state of New South Wales, of the appalling state of public dental treatment in New South Wales. I know that at the Westmead dental clinic, for instance, there are people with no teeth of their own and no false teeth who, according to the clinical guidelines, should be treated within three months—and even that is far too long; an inexcusable delay. But I am aware that, thanks to the incompetence of the New South Wales government, people in that tragic condition are waiting not three months but 2½ years for treatment. I am aware of that. But, unlike members opposite, I do not say that the incompetence of the states is the fault of the federal government; I say the incompetence of the states is the fault of the states.

I know, as members opposite do, that the Howard government did not renew the Keating government scheme. While the scheme did not work especially well, whatever good it was going to do had been done by 1996, and so it was not renewed. This idea that the problems of 2007 are all the fault of a federal government decision in 1996 does not stand serious scrutiny. It is ridiculous to think that the problems of 2007 all stem from a federal government decision back in 1996 when the problems in question have always been the responsibility of the states. The constant claim from members opposite is verging on the ridiculous. It is almost as if the people of Britain would complain against the Italians because the Romans went home in 410 AD and they have been suffering ever since from the lack of the legions.

Let me tell the member opposite a little about the Keating scheme. When the Keating scheme was in place, spending $100 million a year, the states were spending $200 million a year. Under the member for Gellibrand’s proposal, she is going to spend less than $100 million at a time when the states are spending $500 million. So her scheme is less than half as significant—

See this speech in context