Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Washer, as a doctor you will understand GP superclinics and you will also understand the disappointment that I feel because, after my electorate was promised one of the 36 superclinics almost three years ago, there is still no superclinic in Townsville and no prospect of one being started before the next election. That is very disappointing.

The Health Practitioner Regulation (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 that the parliament is discussing today contains amendments to support the introduction and implementation of the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for the Health Professions. It provides transitional arrangements for this scheme. It is a positive initiative, which will nationally streamline the recognition and registration of medical people working in medical professions. There are 10 healthcare professions that are involved: medical practitioners, dentists, nurses, midwives, pharmacists, psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, physiotherapists, osteopaths and podiatrists.

In July 2006 the Council of Australian Governments agreed to set up the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for the Health Professions, and in March 2008 COAG signed an agreement to introduce the scheme by 1 July 2010. I observe here that in health things move very slowly indeed and the current health reforms being trumpeted by the government are also moving very slowly indeed. For example, the government announced that there would be a PET scanner based in Townsville—the first PET scanner in Queensland outside Brisbane. Of course it should be in Townsville, which is more than 1,000 kilometres from the state capital, but while the government said that we would get a PET scanner it did not say that we would not get it until 2013-14. The government should have made that clear, because there is an expectation in the Townsville community that a PET scanner is coming now.

Many health reforms do not take place other than in the out years, and I think people are going to be quite disappointed that, although there is all this trumpeting about wonderful healthcare reform, they will not see anything happen for several years yet. This is the cynic in me speaking, but when it finally does happen I reckon we are going to see more of the same. There will still be the waiting lists on elective surgery, and there will still be the problems in the emergency departments. We do not seem to be able to get a handle on how to fix these problems. Often they are to do with workforce issues, particularly in the public system. One of the fundamental things that the government will not address is the workforce issues and the terrible inefficiencies that occur in the health system because of them. I will give you an example, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know somebody who was called into one of the operating theatres at the Townsville Hospital on the weekend and there were 14 people in the theatre being paid overtime. They did not know what to do with themselves. There was no work for them, but they still had to be in the theatre, whereas if the same operations were taking place in the Mater hospital there would be three people in the theatre and they would do twice as many procedures. That is the kind of sickness that is in the health system.

In November 2008, Queensland was the first state to pass a law, the Health Practitioner Regulation (Administrative Arrangements) National Law Act 2008, to deal with the issues at hand. The state then passed a law allowing a national scheme to be put in place. A national approach on this issue is important; however, the scheme has raised several contentious and important issues. There have been legitimate concerns raised in the debate, particularly by some of the key stakeholders, and the government must listen to these concerns from people who are directly involved in providing health care to Australian patients.

One of the provisions of the national registration and accreditation scheme is for mandatory reporting by healthcare professionals themselves. A medical professional seeking personal treatment would have to have this treatment reported. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners has expressed strong concern—and I think that is understandable—that this may lead to healthcare professionals hiding their own medical conditions, which may in turn pose a great risk to patients. That is something that we should think about deeply.

The AMA has its own concerns about this bill, particularly about two of the provisions relating to requirements for medical professionals. As well as being recognised as a specialist by the state or territory where they practice, they will also be required to satisfy ‘any other requirements prescribed by the regulations’. The AMA has quite rightly pointed out that this is an unnecessary extra requirement, as the medical professions are already registered. This is symptomatic of what we seem to do to ourselves: layering on this regulation and red tape and so on. Year by year it gets harder and harder, and people ultimately find that it is too much.

The AMA has also raised an issue regarding Medicare benefit ineligibility. If a medical professional provides a service outside their authorised practice, they will be ineligible for Medicare benefits. I do not understand that. This provision is specific only to medical professionals. Why? Ten healthcare professions are identified by the scheme, yet only medical professionals are subject to this requirement. The AMA has argued that this provision should therefore apply to all health professions who would receive Medicare benefits, and that seems sensible.

The bureaucracy involved in this scheme is a big concern. If bureaucrats get overinvolved and end up dictating to health boards during the implementation of the scheme, we will lose the focus on providing better health care. That alarms me. That I am raising this concern should not come as a surprise, because the Rudd government has only one approach to Australia’s healthcare system, and that is to increase the layers of bureaucracy. Just last night in the budget we saw Mr Rudd spend an extra $500 million on more health bureaucracy. Mr Rudd and Mr Swan promised the Australian people that they would not increase health bureaucracy. They broke that promise last night, and none of the $500 million will go towards hospital services.

When the Prime Minister trumpets his healthcare agreement, he does not tell the Australian people about all the layers of bureaucracy in his plan, but when you look at it there are so many levels and departments. Not only are there 11 Commonwealth and state health departments and area health services but also now Labor is going to establish more agencies: the National Health and Hospitals Network Fund, the hospital pricing authority, the National Performance Authority and local hospital networks. Of course, ‘local hospital networks’ is a misnomer. The government has given communities around Australia the expectation that there will be a local hospital boards, but that is not right. There will be local hospital networks, but they will not be for individual hospitals.

The coalition, however, welcomes extra investment in health. It is vital that health care in Australia receives the reform and support it needs. However, under the Rudd plan all this new funding will have to go through all the different layers of bureaucracy before even coming close to those who need it the most: the patients. We know that Queensland Health, for example, is a Soviet style bureaucracy. It is so difficult and wastes so much money and, of course, the customers do not see the results of that expenditure.

Since 2007 Kevin Rudd has let down Australians in a whole host of areas. This broken health bureaucracy promise is just one of those—I can also think of GroceryWatch, Fuelwatch and the pink batts Home Insulation Program. Of course, as I mentioned earlier, he promised to build 36 GP superclinics. Here we are in 2010 and only two of these have become fully operational. I do not believe the government when they say they will build another 23 clinics. If they cannot deliver on the first 36, what will be the fate of the next 23?

In Townsville, we are still waiting. I am hopeful—the proponent who won the right to operate the superclinic in Townsville is a very, very good operator and is very much into patient care. But the results speak for themselves. There is no GP superclinic in Townsville and there is not likely to be one for at least another year. It is very disappointing when the public are given the expectation that the Rudd government will deliver but then it does not. Is it surprising to any of us that the Prime Minister gets tagged with the phrase ‘All talk and no action’ when that is the reality? However, I will be supporting the bill and thank the parliament for the opportunity to speak about it.

See this speech in context