Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is with great pleasure that I follow that rather interesting contribution of the member for O’Connor that was all over the place. It was very difficult to understand what he was saying and where he was going because they were rambling words of a man that were said in order to insult the Minister for Health and Ageing. When a person’s contribution to a debate is based on pure denigration I do not think they have much to contribute to the debate or that they really understand the issue.

The Health Insurance Amendment (Diagnostic Imaging Accreditation) Bill 2009 amends the Health Insurance Amendment (Diagnostic Imaging Accreditation) Act 2007 to provide transitional arrangements to allow practices providing non-radiological services—that is, services such as ultrasounds—and a combination of non-radiological and radiological services not accredited under the Diagnostic Imaging Accreditation Scheme to register for deemed accreditation in the three months prior to the commencement of the stage 2 scheme, which will commence on 1 July 2010.

Transitional arrangements for deemed accreditation will be required to be registered through them from 1 January 2010. Therefore, this legislation is time sensitive. This is because this would ensure that Medicare eligibility continues from 1 July 2010, when for the purpose of Medicare all diagnostic-imaging services listed in the diagnostic-imaging service table of the Medical Benefits Schedule would need to be rendered at a site accredited under the scheme.

This is important legislation. This is stage 2 of the legislation. Stage 1 of the legislation passed through this parliament in May 2007. At that time I spoke in support of the legislation, but I was a little critical of the way the minister went through the stages of preparation and of the reliability of costing. It was a bit all over the place. There was no attention to detail. We all know that with the then Minister for Health and Ageing, who is now the Leader of the Opposition, you have to look very carefully at anything he does, because quite often you will find out that what he says and what he does are very different things. We stood in this parliament on many occasions when he gave rock-solid, ironclad, rolled gold guarantees that he would not downgrade our health services in this country, yet he ripped $1 billion out of our hospitals. In addition to that, the first act of the Howard government—and one that the now opposition leader continues to support from when he was the health minister—was to close down the Commonwealth dental scheme. I will talk a little bit more about that as I continue with my contribution to this debate.

This is, I think, good legislation. There has been good consultation with people within the community, and due process has been observed. Currently there are 1,400 practices providing non-radiological services, and they will enter into stage 2 of the scheme, as opposed to ones at stage 1, which dealt with those practices and services of a radiological nature. This is really important because it will have a particular impact in rural and regional areas. So it is important that this stage 2, which will be positive for those areas, is passed through the House in the time that it needs to be passed through the House.

I thought that this might be a good time to pick up on some of those arguments put forward by the member for O’Connor, who, I might add, did not ever refer to the legislation. But I was quite happy to listen to what he had to say. I now feel that my contribution to the debate will pick up on some of the issues that he spent a lot of time on. He talked about dental. I must say that the Howard government’s record in relation to dental care and dental health was very poor. There was the introduction of enhanced dental care, which allowed for people with chronic health needs or illnesses to access dental care—this is a very small percentage of people—whilst thousands of people languished on waiting lists. The opposition have continued to frustrate reform of the dental system since they have been in opposition. The government committed a total of $650 million for two dental programs. The teen dental health program commenced last year, and it provides $150 million annually to eligible families. The other program that we put to the parliament is the Commonwealth Dental Health Program. Unfortunately, due to the actions of the opposition in the Senate, that has not come into effect. Instead we have the enhanced dental health program, which pays up to $4,100 over a two-year period to people with chronic illnesses. That leads to a situation where a large section of the community on low and middle incomes that would be able to access the Commonwealth health dental scheme that the government has put to the parliament are missing out, whilst a small number of people with chronic illnesses are able to access dental care.

Even worse than that, a number of people have been deemed to have chronic health problems because their doctors and dentists know that they need this vital dental health program. So you have a system being exploited simply because there is not a suitable, proper system in place for all Australians to utilise. I do not know how the member for O’Connor can stand up in this place and say that the Howard government’s record on dental health is something to be proud of. I am ashamed to think that he would speak in this parliament and condemn thousands and thousands of Australians to suffering because he will not support the Commonwealth Dental Health Program that the Rudd government took to the last election, which was supported by the Australian people and which the opposition is frustrating in the Senate.

I thought it would also be interesting to touch on the workforce issue. In the last parliament, the then health minister, who just happens to be the Leader of the Opposition now, gave terms of reference to the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing to do an inquiry into health funding and cost shifting within the health system. His underlying assumption was that he was going to prove that there was cost shifting by the states to the Commonwealth. The report showed that there was cost shifting in a number of different areas within the health system. There were a number of recommendations that were made in this report. The report was tabled in the parliament in November 2006 and I know you will be shocked to learn, Mr Deputy Speaker, that when we went to the election in November 2007 the government still had not responded to the blame game report. I see this blame game report as a blueprint and as a really good starting place to look at the health system and to work through some of the problems in the health system.

One of the issues identified as being a problem was the issue of workforce shortage. Under the control and leadership of the then health minister and now Leader of the Opposition there was allowed to develop a chronic workforce shortage in Australia—doctors, nurses and all allied health professionals. He ignored this chronic shortage and did nothing about it. Since the Rudd government was elected a very tangible policy has been implemented and action has been taken. I will say for the member for O’Connor’s benefit that there has been a 40 per cent increase in the number of doctors being trained. It takes a while for that to flow through, but eventually it will.

The Shortland electorate, the electorate I represent in this parliament, has the 11th oldest population of any electorate in Australia. As such, there are fairly high health needs in that electorate. Overall, it has the 18th highest number of people receiving an income below $650 a week. This shows an older population with a very small disposable income. During the time that the Leader of the Opposition was minister for health there was a drastic decline in bulk billing. That has improved enormously since the Rudd government has been in power. There was an increase in out-of-pocket expenses under the reign of the then health minister, now the Leader of the Opposition. Doctors were closing their books and it was a very sad story. Still there is a shortage of doctors in Shortland electorate and throughout Australia, so this will take time. That 40 per cent increase in the number of doctors training will eventually filter through the system, but until that happens we are going to be confronted with this shortage of doctors and the impact that it has on the health service within Australia.

I thought I would mention some of the achievements of the Rudd government just for the benefit of the member for O’Connor, who virtually challenged me to do so when he stood in this House and made his contribution to this debate. The prime aim of the Rudd government in the area of health is to strengthen it after years of neglect and buck passing by the former government. I think this blame game report and the reason it was commissioned—to prove that the problems in health were all caused by the states—are a really good example of buck passing and a government failing to take responsibility for what is its responsibility. Then, when they got the report, they did not respond to it. That is the first point I would like to make.

The Rudd government has invested $64 million in hospitals and the health system across the country since being elected—a 50 per cent increase on the previous government. We have invested $600 million on our elective surgery program, with stage 1 committed to a target of 25,000 extra elective surgeries. That was achieved in 2008 and delivered more than 41,000 procedures. In stage 2, more than 150 hospitals across Australia will receive funding. The hospitals in my own area have benefited from this extra funding.

We have invested $750 million to take the pressure off emergency departments in more than 30 hospitals, and a number of other hospitals have benefited. My daughter-in-law works in an accident and emergency department, and I know just how busy that accident and emergency department is. I also know how valuable extra money is in those accident and emergency departments. When I visit my local hospital, I can see how we have moved to a situation where we value the work that is done in hospitals. I value the work that is done in hospitals, both public and private. I believe that private hospitals make a valuable contribution to our health system and I am very lucky to have an excellent private hospital within the Shortland electorate—the Lake Macquarie Private Hospital. It has particular expertise in the area of cardiology, and it will be one of the hospitals that will need to register under stage 2 of this program.

Private health insurance is an issue that is brought up all the time by members on the other side of this House. I support private health insurance. I have already talked about the income level of people living in the Shortland electorate. The majority of people there will not be impacted on in any way by the changes that we are proposing to private health insurance in this parliament. I do not see why a pensioner living down the road from me should have to subsidise my private health insurance—I think it is indecent. I urge the opposition to get behind the legislation we have in the Senate, pass it and ensure that the pensioners in the Shortland electorate and in the states and territories no longer subsidise their private health insurance. We support private health insurance. We support private hospitals; we support public hospitals. We believe that to have a strong health system you need a mix. That does not mean that governments should pay a subsidy to high-income earners to help them pay their health insurance.

The Rudd government have made some enormous investments in infrastructure within the health system. The member for Dobell mentioned the superclinics and I know that the superclinic in his electorate will also service people in the southern part of the Shortland electorate and I really welcome that. As I mentioned, we have made some big inroads into addressing the issue of doctor shortage and also one of the initiatives that I find particularly exciting is the move towards a greater use of nurse practitioners. Once again, that is a piece of legislation that is languishing in the Senate.

When the opposition in this parliament talk about opposition, they mean opposing everything that comes before them. They have no thought of the impact this opposition will have on everyday people. The opposition have a policy of just saying no. They have refused to pass landmark legislation giving more support and recognition to midwives and nurse practitioners. They have refused to make private health insurance fairer. They have refused to allow more dental health services to be delivered to hundreds and thousands of needy Australians. Their stance on the preventative health agency leaves them open for condemnation. Last year they opposed and delayed a number of government reforms. They are an opposition that opposes everything, has no ideas and has an appalling record in the area of health, one that has delivered a lot of suffering to a number of Australian people. I commend the legislation to the House. (Time expired)

See this speech in context