Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have met plenty; I am not sure about you. The tragedy is there are nearly 70,000 people who are no longer working since your government was elected. One million jobs is a long way away.

We have the ongoing spectre of the GP tax—this ostensible savings measure. It looks like a savings measure, but we are possibly looking at a $2 billion impact, as well as the prospect of tripling waiting times in emergency departments. This is the antithesis of Labor's emphasis on preventative health. Preventative health is no longer a priority, despite impressive bipartisan achievements in the past.

I am deeply concerned that Medicare Locals are under threat under this government. They remain under threat, despite some weasel words in the lead-up to the election and more particularly despite the great record of achievement in linking people to primary health services and making a huge difference—certainly in the communities of north Melbourne and, I understand, right across this country. It is really telling, when we think about this government's commitment to preventative health, that of the 10 minutes available to the minister he might have spent at least one minute talking about his responsibilities. I am guessing, and I think I am being generous, but he spent 20 seconds on preventative health. This is in stark contrast to some of the later contributions, in particular that of the member for Boothby, who dealt with the serious and substantive matter that is before us today.

Public health professionals are making it very clear: the assistant minister is not capable of doing her job. Public health groups have made it very clear, and they are right to do so, that they have no confidence in the minister. There is no doubt that the health star-rating system should be reinstated. The two years of collaborative work—the sort of detailed, deep, bipartisan work involving states and territories, involving industry, consumer groups and public health groups—should be supported. It should be reinstated. Two years of work cannot be lost or buried under this unconvincing sophistry. These are extraordinary events from the point at which the website was made live on 6 February, prompting an immediate reaction by the former chief of staff and then, when that was not enough, by the minister herself. And what did we see by way of outcomes? We did see some consequences visited on the chief of staff, but only after a public servant, doing their job, was effectively punished. And it is important, despite what was said by the previous speaker. We have already seen Choice's work in using this system to inform consumers as to what can be deceptive assessments of products in the marketplace.

When this government was initiated, there was some debate about the titles adopted by ministers. But when we see the Assistant Minister for Health, the minister responsible for health promotion, we see a minister being anything but an advocate for those causes.

See this speech in context