Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Hansard source

I am sorry; in the article the minister said:

The MCDDS has been massively rorted with more than 1000 complaints from patients ripped off with dentures that didn't fit; work charged for that was never done and cosmetic and unnecessary dental work.

Minister, I put it to you this way. One thousand out of one million patients is 0.1 per cent. If you applied your argument to those receiving social security benefits who have rorted the system, you would be arguing to abolish social security because the fraud rate on that is far higher. I say to the minister, this is—to quote the old analogy— a very mean, tricky approach to dental care. This scheme takes care of those most urgently in need of dental repair work. It takes care of those predominantly who can least afford it. Your solution, Minister, is to put people on the queue, with 650,000 already waiting, who will take five years to process. These people will go to the back end of that queue and suffer all the time. I would like to point out comments from Mark Foster, Chief Executive, Hunter Urban Medicare Local, who is also a very well-respected GP. In responding to the arguments put forward on the abolition of this scheme, he said that chronic dental conditions:

… can affect nutrition, which is particularly important for patients with chronic disease;

chronic infections have a deleterious effect on general well-being and can … have a significant impact on patients already unwell due to a chronic disease;

dental infections can spread throughout the bloodstream infecting … which can have a significant impact on patients already unwell due to a chronic disease; and

surgery to have a prosthesis inserted will normally be delayed until a dental infection is resolved to avoid these complications. There can be significant delays in accessing this care through public clinics. Patients may suffer from severe joint pain and incapacity or face the risks associated with delays in cardiovascular surgery.

The reason I oppose this government and want to maintain this scheme is that I am standing up for my constituents in Paterson. I am standing up for those who cannot afford to get dental care. I am standing up for people like Josh, about whom you said:

I read the story in the Mercury about Josh Oran, and concerned for him, as I would be for anyone suffering or recovering from cancer.

How can your concern be for someone who has had bone cancer in the jaw and whose dental work, if not completed by 30 November, will have to go on the back end of the public waiting list to get it addressed? What about his nutrition? What about his quality of life? You come in here, Minister, as a great champion of social causes, yet you are prepared to put those who require urgent treatment to have quality of life on the backburner.

I say to the member of the Lyne, the member for New England, the member for Denison and the member for Kennedy, when you vote on this motion, you need to consider your constituents' needs. As it was pointed out, 80 per cent of the people who have accessed this scheme are on concession cards. I know because the member for Lyne represents the seat to the north of me and the member for New England represents a seat relative to the north-west of me. I have been to Kennedy a number of times and I have also been down to Hobart. I do not see the streets there lined with many millionaires, with people so able to afford urgent dental treatment. I say to you, if you vote to remove this scheme, I want to see you go back to your electorates tomorrow morning, to get into the media and say, 'I proudly voted down this scheme. I want to put all of those suffering from a chronic condition on the back end of the 650,000 waiting list. I want to deny you this treatment all because this minister's justification is 0.1 per cent of all treatments, which led to a complaint.' In saying that, this minister is saying in essence that she does not trust the GPs to make the informed decision of a referral for private dental treatment covered by this Medicare scheme.

I disagree quite often with GPs on a range of issues but I would have thought that, when it comes to the health and wellbeing of our community, they understand more about the medical system and the treatment of their patients than any politician or any bureaucrat because they treat them on a daily basis. They take care of their patients 'general health and wellbeing and Minister Plibersek wants to deny them access. Minister, I am going to go into my community and make sure they understand that you personally want to deny them access to urgent dental work.

See this speech in context