Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Hansard source

Let’s not have the member opposite pretend he does not understand how the budget works. Of course there is funding that is provided in the contingency fund. The member opposite knows that. The member opposite knows that the previous government—his government—were not prepared to announce during the election campaign how much money they were going to put in and now he wants to rewrite history and pretend that they spent and allocated some money, which they never did. If he wants to find the budget papers from previous budgets, we would be delighted to have a cup of tea with him and he can show us where they were, but he knows full well that he cannot.

There were some differences in the figures that were provided initially during the campaign when we announced our dental care figures. We went through the Charter of Budget Honesty. We of course take the advice of the Treasury and the Department of Finance and Deregulation when it is provided. They scaled down the expected take-up, and those figures are reflected in the figures that we have now taken. They were announced before the end of the election because that charter process was finished before the election date, and they have not changed since that time.

The methodology that is entered into with the states in terms of negotiating with them on funding over elective surgery is something that also has amused me. Basically, it is a process that does involve negotiation, something that the previous government was not that inclined to do with the states and territories. We took account of their particular needs. We took account of the number of people on their waiting lists who had waited beyond the clinically recommended time. We took account of the capacity for and difficulty of doing elective surgery. For example, in Tasmania, where it is slightly more expensive, they had more than a population base of funding. And it was something that was hammered out in those meetings with the health ministers and treasurers. We are perfectly proud of the funding that we have provided for them.

We make no apology for cutting the previous government’s program for training nurses in hospitals. They intended to set up an entirely separate program of training for nurses. There are already two separate processes for becoming nurses in this country—probably more, really—the main ones being a graduate process through university and an enrolled nurse process through TAFE. The previous government were intent on setting up a third process. We did not believe that more money should be spent on setting up another process. That money could better be invested in making sure that we increase capacity for the nurses in the system, and we are pleased that our $6,000 contribution to get people back into nursing in nursing homes—which I am sure that my colleague the Minister for Ageing is very pleased about—and hospitals will be useful.

Contrary to the member opposite’s assertions that we have announced extending Medicare, making it available for nurses and allied health professionals, what we have announced is that we intend in the development of our primary care strategy to look at whether better access should be provided to other professionals. We will allow that process to take its course. We believe that a number of those health professionals are underutilised and that we should carefully consider how they can be better utilised for the benefit of the community. When those proposals come up, they will go through the normal process of government announcements and budget processes if and when required.

Of course, we can take the rest of this time to go through each and every one of the budget savings that the member opposite has raised. I think that we have already put on the record, through both Senate estimates and public comments, that we did reduce funding to a number of programs that were not meeting their targets, that were underspent. A lot of those programs are demand driven programs. We have stated clearly in the budget papers that if the demand does increase, we will then provide extra money for those programs.

The member opposite would be well aware that the MOU with the pathology industry is not a legal document, that there are changes that can be made throughout the course of those agreements. Sometimes they are made by agreement; other times they are made by changes that have been announced. The previous government did that very regularly by adding items that could be charged through the memorandum of understanding. Of course, those are more readily welcomed by the industry than when there are cuts, but we do believe that in pathology there are a lot of savings that have been achieved, particularly through the automation of a number of processes, and that this can be well absorbed by the industry.

See this speech in context