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

I thank the member for that question. It is particularly pertinent, because the question asks about us delivering on health in a number of ways, but particularly in general practice. I note that we have just heard from the Leader of the Opposition for 15 minutes and there was one word that did not pass his lips, and that was ‘doctors’. The reason that word did not pass his lips in 15 minutes is that the Leader of the Opposition knows that, when he was the Minister for Health and Ageing, he ignored one of the biggest problems that the country faced, and that was the shortage of GPs. He did not just ignore the shortage of GPs; he capped the number of young Australians who could come from medical school and go into general practice. In the whole 15 minutes of the health debate, he did not take any opportunity to correct that. He did not want to say one word about the announcement made this week—$632 million to get rid of that cap to make sure that double that number of young students can go into general practice in the future.

I think the first question that will have to be answered in this debate between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition is: does he support us doubling the cap that he put on students wanting to go into general practice? He has not said a word about it. That is the same approach he took he took when we announced our National Health and Hospital Network plan, which was to duck for cover and to look for a diversion—everything but singing and dancing. He will have to turn up to the debate and he will have to answer whether he supports this investment in general practice.

In his heart of hearts, the reason he did not mention it for the last 15 minutes is that he knows his record is appalling. He put that cap in place. He was pleaded with time after time by the AMA, by the divisions of general practice and by the student associations, but it fell on deaf ears because the Leader of the Opposition, as the health minister, had other things he was more interested in. What else could he have possibly been more interested in? You might imagine that he might have delivered some other changes to the system, but of course, despite the presumed pleadings of the previous member for Bennelong, and perhaps of the member for North Shore, to invest in the PET scanner, it was ignored until the eve of the election. I noticed that the member for North Shore was interjecting that, in fact, a former health minister, Michael Wooldridge, attended twice and still did not deliver the PET scanner—12 whole years and they could not do it.

We see the same thing from the member for Solomon—happy to promise and promise, election after election, and not deliver. We have seen this again. We see the Leader of the Opposition having the audacity, when the young kids are here from the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, to say again that he was going to do something about it—never in a budget, never funded, only a promise, never delivered. Now we are able to assist hundreds of young Australians—supported, I might say, by people on both sides of the House passionately interested in delivering for young people with type 1 diabetes. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition does not appear to be one of those people.

I was also lucky, this morning, to be able to attend a breast care nurse conference in Sydney—300 women supporting and providing fabulous services to women and some men across the country diagnosed with breast cancer. Again, I have asked the Leader of the Opposition and I ask those members opposite to consider: who is it that actually funded those breast care nurses? Which government is it that delivered on breast care nurses, for example, in Shoalhaven in the seat of Gilmore, in Hervey Bay in the seat of Hinkler and at Victor Harbor in the seat of Mayo? I see the member for Mayo has his hand on his head—

See this speech in context