Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to thank the member for Farrer for giving me yet another opportunity to speak on regional and rural medical services. It is also another opportunity for me to point out the lack of purpose in relation to this area of health care from the previous federal government. I remember during the last election the case of two small hospitals in the electorate of Lyons—at Rosebery and at Ouse—where politics was played for the purpose of playing politics because of cutbacks from the federal government to the state. Those communities were used politically, with no opportunities to improve their service delivery.

I got a bit excited when I read the motion. Initially, it sounded very good—‘that the House supports long-term viability of regional and rural medical practices, hospitals and services’. That was very good and to the point, and I certainly agree with that. And, of course, the Royal Flying Doctor Service does an excellent job and we should recognise it whenever we can. However, I certainly cannot agree with the rest of the motion. It is a shame that, over the last 11 years, those on that side of the House were not more concerned about rural health. I know that the member for Farrer was not a member for that length of time, but there was a lot that could have been done that was not done. It is a shame that they relied on 17-year-old data—population figures from the 1991 census—when they developed the incentives for doctors and other rural workforces. It was pretty old data. That was the sort of support for long-term viability for rural health that those on that side of the House showed in those decisions.

Part 2 of the motion gives me quite a deal of concern. It suggests the member for Farrer’s lack of real understanding of health and service delivery in rural and regional Australia. I want to outline a few of the failings of the previous Liberal government. In the 2004 election the Liberal government promised $15 million to establish the Rural Medical Infrastructure Fund. Despite this, it was revealed in the estimates of 2007 that only $3.5 million of that program had been allocated. In the 2007 election, the Rudd Labor team promised to rectify this.

In the budget last year we honoured that commitment when we announced $46 million over four years for rural and remote communities, strategic planning for small rural private hospitals and our new National Rural and Remote Health Infrastructure Program, which is operating tremendously. On 28 January 2009, just a few weeks ago, Minister Roxon announced the first 53 of those projects—a total of $12 million. In less than 12 months after the budget we have already allocated more than three times as much as the Liberals managed to allocate for the whole term of the last government. I think those figures speak for themselves. This is in addition to the substantial funding commitment of GP superclinics, many of which will be built in regional areas. We have established an office of rural health, in case the opposition and the member Farrer missed that significant development. They may have missed that.

In part 2 of that motion the member for Farrer also suggests that the state governments are responsible for failing to provide adequate health services for Australians in rural, regional and remote areas. The shadow minister, who has just arrived, raised that in the chamber today during question time. This seems to be the little game that that side wants to play—blame the states for health care. The opposition has forgotten that in 2000 more than $1 billion was removed from the Commonwealth-state funding for our hospitals, which resulted in the Commonwealth share of funding falling from 50 per cent to 45 per cent. So there is a fair bit of history that goes with this as well, and there is a fair bit of history that the member of Farrer should mention when she gets into these discussions. This is not a one-way street. This government has done more in its first year than what the previous government did in a three-year term. (Time expired)

See this speech in context