Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The issue that the member for O’Connor raised that was in fact correct was that, by itself, putting money into public hospitals to reduce waiting lists is not the full answer. That is why the Rudd government has a comprehensive plan in relation to health and is not relying just on the Health Care (Appropriation) Amendment Bill 2008 alone.

I also need to make some comments about the proposed amendment from the member for North Sydney. The blinding hypocrisy that the member for North Sydney has shown in lodging this particular amendment almost bowls you over. If we look at what the amendment says, we will see that it first of all notes that the funding is provided as a short-term solution to the crisis in our public hospitals. The question has to be asked: why are our public hospitals having this particular crisis? The answer to that is blindingly obvious. We used to have a situation where the contributions from the state and federal governments were approximately 50 per cent each. But in the last 11½ years of the Howard government we saw the federal contribution decline. We in fact saw it decline to such an extent that the federal government contribution was just a little over 40 per cent and the states’ contribution had to increase to fill the gap. No wonder the public hospital system and the states have been crying out for more money to make sure that they can do what they are charged to do. It is because the former government was starving them of funds. One of the main purposes of this bill is to provide over $1 billion worth of funding to the states to go some way towards rectifying the neglect that the previous government inflicted on our public hospital system over 11½ years.

The second part of the amendment that the member for North Sydney put up was in relation to the Medicare levy. Quite frankly, this is a cheap political stunt. Legislation on the Medicare levy surcharge has been argued and debated in this House, and to put up an amendment that seeks to make a political statement on a bill that has nothing to do with the surcharge is nothing more than cheap politics and should be seen as such.

The other point that needs to be looked at in relation to the former government’s record on health is exactly what they were promising at the last election compared to what we the Rudd government are delivering in the budget and in where we are going with public health. Leading into the election, the former government’s health policy had two points. One was to create local hospital boards and a new level of administration at every hospital. By the time the election campaign was over, they were not particularly sure whether that was still their policy, because it was going to be a nightmare to administer. The second policy they had for health was the cheap political stunt of looking at buying out a hospital in Tasmania. One hospital was their answer. Their entire health policy was to create another level of bureaucracy in the form of local hospital boards and to buy out a single hospital in Tasmania in a marginal seat that they thought they would be able to win if they made that promise.

Members of the opposition are in opposition because the voters saw through those tactics. They saw that they were inadequate to address the health needs of this country. The former government were not even able to win the seat in which they tried to bribe the electorate, because the voters saw through the lack of forward planning and the lack of a proper plan for health care.

Australia’s systems of government are creaking with age. This is evident in many vital areas of people’s lives, including in water, environmental laws, infra-structure and education. The age of our federalism, to me, is most evident in our health systems. We face many challenges in modernising federalism. It is going to be tough. Tough decisions will have to be made. Entrenched power and familiar yet inefficient processes will need to be challenged.

As I said, from my experience of representing health workers for close to 20 years, and being the elected member for Dobell, it is very clear to me that the Australian people want to end the blame game that has so defined governance for decades. I know that the tit for tat of the federal government bashing the state government and vice versa has been the staple diet for many of our local newspapers. It is the cheap and easy way for lazy politicians to get the hard work done. The former government turned it into an art form. We all saw that in the Crosby Textor leaks last year that said attacking the states was a winning political formula. The Rudd government takes a different approach on these issues. The Rudd government says that we need to lay out a proper plan for Australia’s health future and we need to be putting our health dollar where it is most needed. We also need to be doing more than criticising other levels of government.

That, principally, is what the Health Care (Appropriation) Amendment Bill is about. It is about providing a billion dollars to the states, to the public health system—a billion dollars which the previous government had ripped out, a billion dollars which is needed to make sure that we have an efficient health system that can operate and provide the outcomes that patients want. In health, we saw that the previous government cherry-picked only one of the 700 public hospitals to try and demonstrate symbolically that they were interested in public health. But the electorate knew that it was only symbolic. The electorate knew that the previous government had no interest in public health—and the contribution from the member for O’Connor today only confirmed that further.

The purpose of the bill before the House today is to increase the appropriation to state and territory governments under the Australian healthcare agreements by $10.25 billion dollars. This will ensure continued funding for state and territory healthcare systems during the Australian healthcare agreements negotiations, scheduled for the latter half of 2008.

The Australian healthcare agreements are five-year bilateral funding agreements between the Commonwealth and the states and territories to provide public hospital services. Under the Australian healthcare agreements, the Commonwealth and the states and territories share funding, but management of the services is delivered by the states and territories. The Australian healthcare agreements are the key funding mechanism for state and territory healthcare systems—namely, public hospitals. There is a provision in the Health Care (Appropriation) Act 1998 for other healthcare programs to be funded provided they improve service delivery or patient outcomes.

Historically, negotiations have been protracted and, at times, the states and the Commonwealth have been at loggerheads over the proposed contributions, with the states and territories claiming during the last negotiations that the Commonwealth share of funding had declined—which clearly it had. The current Australian healthcare agreement is due to expire on 30 June 2008. This appropriation reflects the commitment made at the Council of Australian Governments meeting on 26 March 2008, where the Commonwealth government undertook to provide an immediate allocation of $1 billion to the public health system, with $500 million to be provided before 30 June 2008. It is intended that this money would be used by the states and territories to relieve pressure on public hospitals.

This bill is about providing some funding to the states and territories for their public hospital systems while these agreements are negotiated. The Rudd government is concerned about making sure that we come to the table with the states and territories, in good faith, that we put our money where our mouth is and that we sit down in good faith to negotiate five-year agreements. But, to do this with any sort of decency and to try to make sure that the public hospital systems are able to operate as they should, this bill needs to be passed so that the billion dollars in funding can be provided and so that those negotiations can continue.

This bill, in providing funding to the public hospital systems, complements other legislation and other initiatives that were announced in the budget by the Rudd government—in particular, the $3.2 billion National Health and Hospital Reform Plan. As part of that, there was the GP Super Clinics initiative that was announced at the last election and funded in this budget. It goes to perhaps the only point that the member for O’Connor made that is worth remembering, and that is that our health system is not just about public hospitals; it is also about providing primary care and making sure that preventative health care is taken. In my electorate, we have a promise which was in the budget of a GP superclinic for $2½ million, and that is absolutely vital to the health of our public hospital system, because we have a chronic shortage of GPs in our area—a chronic shortage of GPs that happened on the watch of the previous government.

I believe it is vital that this bill is passed. It provides much-needed money for the states and territories to run their public hospital systems. It is one that should be supported unamended. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context