Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this disallowance motion because it is a very important issue for the people of my electorate. It is a very important issue because it affects those people who can afford dental treatment the least. It is a very important issue because it is going to deprive many people of services that are vital to their health and will leave them with little or no alternative.

Yesterday, in the debate on the Dental Benefits Amendment Bill, coalition speakers outlined the history of the Medicare Chronic Disease Dental Scheme—a scheme which provided for the first time access for people who could least afford it to a Medicare funded dental scheme in Australia. The coalition supports good dental outcomes and assistance for those who need help to get those outcomes, but the coalition is concerned about the gap that this new bill will introduce. It is particularly of concern for low income earners and those most in need. There is a gap because the new scheme does not commence until January 2014 for children, a 13-month gap; and July 2014 for adults, a 19-month gap.

It is a gap that concerns constituents in my electorate. I have been receiving in my electorate office numerous phone calls from people concerned about what is going to happen to them in this intervening period, where the minister's legislation says there will be no treatment and there will be no alternative. The minister came into this place and said, 'Trust me; there'll be a few scraps on the table to look after you.' The reality is that my constituents know that they cannot trust this minister. They know that their own health is at risk. They know that they are going to be going to the end of a 650,000-person waiting list. They will wait 19 months for the new scheme to kick in. Then what will happen?—they will earn the right to go to the end of a waiting list that is 650,000-people long. That is hardly good policy. No wonder they are so concerned.

Children must wait 13 months to access the new scheme, and the cap has been reduced, from $4,250 over two years to $1,000 over two years. Whilst this will assist some children, for those with chronic dental problems, $1,000 over two years will simply not be enough. As I said, in my electorate there are a range of people who rely on the current scheme, and the removal of this scheme will put further pressure on the costs of living that they are currently experiencing.

I would like to recount two phone calls in particular that were received at my office. One person who called my office has Sjogren's syndrome, which attacks the glands that produce tears and saliva. This person requires ongoing preventative dental treatment. For them, the gap of 19 months is unconscionable. What is going to happen to them during that 19-month period? Are they going to take an Aspro, go home and do nothing, and see their health deteriorate? I was also contacted by a 68-year-old pensioner who was eligible under the current scheme. He requires continuous dental check-ups and denture upgrades. With no assistance, on his fixed income what is he going to do? This shows gross disregard by this government for people most in need. They claim to be the champion of the battlers. Unfortunately, they have proven by their conduct to be otherwise.

The minister also says the current scheme has been rorted and has to be closed down because of that. I say the minister should take action under the legislation to recover money from any people who have rorted the scheme. I would also say that there is rorting of other benefits in Medicare—is the minister proposing to close those down? There is rorting of the social security system—is the minister proposing to close down the social security system? Rorting is always an issue, and every member of this House abhors it. Having said that, it is not an excuse to close down a scheme that is providing much needed assistance with health to those most in need and is vital to improve health outcomes. Placing someone on a 650,000-person waiting list after 19 months is no solution to improve dental health outcomes.

The Independents should consider in their deliberations the impact that this gap in service is going to have for their constituents. I know the member for Lyne's electorate has a very similar demographic to mine—many people on low incomes, many people on social security benefits, and many other people who are unable to afford the sorts of dental care that the current scheme provides. I would say to the member for Lyne that he should think carefully about the issue of the 19-month gap. He should think carefully about the fact that, after that prolonged waiting period of 19 months, those people will still be faced with a waiting list of 650,000. The same goes for the member for New England. He would have many low-income earners and many people dependent on benefits in his electorate. He should also think carefully about the impact of withdrawing services from those people most in need. It is vital that the crossbenchers consider carefully their actions in this bill, because this is a very important disallowance motion before the House.

I commend the previous scheme as implemented by the coalition government. I certainly do not accept that rorting is a reason for taking away benefits from people most in need. As I have said, rorting is, unfortunately, a practice that occurs across a whole range of government benefits. It should be stamped out, absolutely. But the minister cannot use that as an excuse to close down a very important scheme. The crossbenchers should think carefully about maintaining the current level of services for their own people.

If the government were serious about improved dental outcomes it would be introducing a new scheme that moved seamlessly from the previous scheme rather than introducing a massive gap that is going to cause major problems to those people most in need and those who are benefiting from the current scheme.

See this speech in context