Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Through the chair, the former coalition government could have spent that quarter of a trillion dollars on infrastructure and a range of things if the hole left by the previous Labor administration had not been not there. Moving on to schedule 2 of the legislation and focusing on the duplicity of the Labor government, schedule 2 will amend section 124 of the Defence Act 1903 to explicitly enable the making of regulations to cover the provision of medical and dental treatment, including pharmaceuticals to an ADF member or cadet or a member of the family of an ADF member.

As stated the bill provides for the making of regulations about medical and dental treatment for an ADF member, cadet or a member of the family of an ADF member. These terms are defined in section 58A of the Defence Act. Yet the Labor government’s 2007 federal election policy on defence promised something very different to what schedule 2 is indeed delivering. It promised free medical and dental care for ADF families. It went on to say ADF families face significant difficulties obtaining access to general medical and dental care for dependants, especially in regional and remote localities. Speaking as a former military officer, who spent 12 months living on Thursday Island working with the 51st Battalion of the Far North Queensland Regiment, it is difficult to get good medical treatment when you are in the middle of the Torres Strait. Labor policy went on to say that posting to a remote location could mean that ADF families struggle to access the sort of health care that most Australians enjoy. No-one can argue with those two statements.

The policy platform then went on to say that a Rudd Labor government would progressively extend free health care currently provided to ADF personnel to ADF dependent spouses and children—notable, noteworthy and indeed supportable. The fourth point was that Labor would begin this with a $33.1 million investment starting at 12 defence family healthcare clinics with a focus on remote base locations and major regional centres. It is here where the duplicity starts. It is here where the election promise does not even come close to being honoured. It is here where Defence families, where fighting men and women, have been sold short.

It is important not to look at what is said with respect to election promises but to look at what is budgeted in budgets brought down and subsequently what is delivered. The Rudd government’s 2008-09 budget funded the promised entitlements only as a trial, clearly failing to deliver on an election commitment, a commitment to progressively extend free health care. It was not a commitment to try it and see how it goes but to progressively extend it. Instead of the $33.1 million promised there was only $12.2 million over four years—4½ million dollars or four million and a bit dollars per year—to trial the provision of free basic GP services and limited dental care to families of ADF members, initially in the rural and remote communities of Singleton, Katherine, East Sale, Cairns and Karratha/Pilbara. Five sites and $12.2 million are far from $33.1 million and 12 defence establishments.

The amount allocated for 2008-09, the current financial year, is only $2.4 million with dental care limited to only $300 per dependant per annum. Only five of the 10 rural and remote defence locations were mentioned initially, excluding Townsville and Darwin. I am sure the member for Eden-Monaro, the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support, must be appalled to see defence establishments and defence servicemen so poorly sold out. Rather than defence families attending defence family healthcare clinics, which was the policy commitment of the Rudd government prior to the election, families are to source their own doctor and dentist. This is a little difficult sometimes when you are in the middle of nowhere. On 17 October last year, the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel announced, to his credit, that the trial would be extended to include Townsville, Darwin and Puckapunyal, although I suggest only after a significant backlash from the defence community, but to his credit nonetheless.

ADF families do not currently have access to any form of free health cover as opposed to the militaries of other countries, of which the United States is a good example. Free health care—which includes physio, dental, general practice, other allied health professionals, cosmetic and indeed psychological services—is currently provided as needed or as requested to all full-time ADF personnel only. Apart from the provision of emergency health treatment to civilians and health care provided to an ADF member’s dependants accompanying the member if they are travelling overseas, defence’s health care is aimed at the operational readiness of ADF members. It is important that their health care and dental care be in top-rate condition before we send them to battle.

The relevant regulations allow for the provision of medical and dental treatment to members of the ADF on these grounds. Most of the services are provided in-house. Albury/Wodonga and Puckapunyal have these services provided by a civilian contractor. The value of the contract for Albury/Wodonga is approximately $27 million over four years, servicing perhaps something like 900 people—a cost of $7,500 per person including the provision of GP, physio, dental, specialists et cetera. This is a far cry from what Labor is presenting at a cap of $300 per dental consultation in total.

There is no question and the facts bear witness today that the Labor government have broken a key promise to our defence personnel. It is a key compact with those who do our war fighting on our behalf. They promised to spend $33.1 million over four years on 12 defence family healthcare clinics. They said they would to service men and women, many thousands who were fighting on the frontline overseas, thousands of kilometres away from loved ones, from family, from friends, from home and from all that they knew. They said to those people overseas, ‘We will provide free health care for your families in these 12 locations.’ Now these same people find out that this compact has been broken. The budget delivered a $12.2 million trial in only five locations, albeit three more have been added. This is $20.9 million short of an election promise.

I say to the government, I could understand it if we had left you in an almost quarter of a trillion dollar hole, which in the scheme of things is what the next coalition government will be left with. I could understand it if there were a $96 billion debt, if interest payments were $30 billion or $40 billion by the time it was paid off or if superannuation entitlements of $60 billion had not been catered for—I could probably understand it if you were facing that.

But indeed the Labor government came into office with an economy in first-rate condition, the envy of the world, with banking stability—where only 16 banks have AA rating of which four are our big four banks—in which there is no net Commonwealth debt; in which future superannuation liabilities have been catered for in the Future Fund; in which a surplus of $18 billion was left them in the 2007-08 budget and $20 billion in other infrastructure accounts. In conditions like that, in a budget position the envy of the world, the Labor government cut $20.9 million from the health care of the mums and dads, the boys and the girls and the babies of our fighting men and women. It is unbelievable. Of all the places to make a budget cut in such an impressive fiscal position the Labor government was left by the Howard government, of all the places to make a budget cut, taking $20.9 million from the health care of the most vulnerable, the families of serving men and women in remote localities that do not enjoy the same comforts that we do in the more urban areas, is almost reprehensible.

Instead of extending the free health care to ADF personnel, only a trial has been committed to, for basic GP services and limited dental care in eight locations. RAAF Edinburgh, Elizabeth North, RAAF Amberley and RAAF Williamtown all miss out, as do other establishments. Instead of free health care, the trial will provide only $300 for dental care per dependant. Given the current cost of dental care, this amount simply does not add up. Two hundred and three million dollars per year is spent on defence health—about $4,300 per soldier, sailor or airman. Labor’s plan does not even come close to what we currently spend on our fighting men and women. This is a dishonouring of the defence community; breaking promises to the community is always dishonouring that community. They have made a promise either without comprehending what it would take to implement or—and I cannot believe this would be the case—with no intention of actually delivering. The Prime Minister and Minister for Defence looked our service men and women in the eye and made them a promise they had no intention of delivering on. I refuse to accept that is the case, looking across the chamber at the member for Eden-Monaro. I have faith that he will ensure that the right thing is done by our defence men and women. Having pledged an initial $33.l million investment to start 12 defence family healthcare clinics, with a focus on remote bases and locations, this promise must be fulfilled.

In section 4 of the Defence Act 1903, it defines a ‘member’ as including ‘any officer, sailor, soldier and airman’. It is not clear whether the bill intends that reservists and their families are to be included in the class of people who will have access to the proposed medical and dental treatment. It is perhaps unlikely given that in section 4 and elsewhere in the Defence Act a distinction is drawn between the terms ‘member’ and ‘member of the Reserve’. Again I would see it as unlikely that Labor would exclude our reservists, considering that our deployment to the Solomons is staffed entirely by reserve personnel. Again looking at the member for Eden-Monaro, a member of the government in the Defence portfolio, I can only hope he will ensure that our reservists are not excluded.

The legislation amendments deal with the provision of health care to cadets. However, the extent of health benefits available to cadets has not been made clear by the government. I can only assume that further regulations will provide clarity on the issue of cadets.

The ADF is still experiencing recruitment challenges. Although a range of initiatives has been put in place by the Rudd and indeed the Howard government that has alleviated many areas of this, it is still a problem. It would be disappointing if a roll-back in the Rudd Labor government’s commitment to defence families was allowed to impact defence recruitment.

There is a need for a degree of bipartisanship, when it comes to defence and our national security, across both sides of the chamber. There are only two members of the House who wear operational service medals from service in the military. It behoves us to ensure that our Defence Force is ably supplied, well managed and well equipped, that promises are not broken, that our defence men and women and their families are well taken care of. At this stage that responsibility falls on the shoulders of the member for Eden-Monaro, a distinguished officer, a combat veteran who wears the Active Service Medal, a man of great respect. I look to him to ensure that our men and women are taken care of.

See this speech in context