Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Hansard source

In just 14 days time, the Abbot government's $80 billion cuts to health and education start. The member should inform himself of just what has happened, in terms of the national partnership agreements in health that formed the basis of the health and hospital reform agreements, and talk to his state counterparts for the adjustments that they are having to make—significant adjustments to all of the public hospital budgets, right the way across the country because of the cuts had been made to health.

These are cuts that do not start in 2017 as the Prime Minister claimed. They are cuts that do not start next year. These cuts start on 1 July this year. That is $55 billion that has been ripped from Australian hospitals, beginning in just 14 days time. Cutting funding from health and public hospitals means more pressure on our emergency departments. It means longer waiting times for elective surgery. It means that Australians will find it even more difficult to access the health care they need.

It is clear from this budget that the Prime Minister and his health minister are trying to shift responsibility for health out of the Commonwealth and back onto the states and territories, and onto individual taxpayers. We had reports today that elective surgery times in South Australia could blow out due to the Abbott government's cuts and we have heard that these cuts will contribute to bed closures in some states. New South Wales Premier Mike Baird said, on 19 May—I note he hands this budget down tomorrow—the impact starts on 1 July. The equivalent here in New South Wales is that over 300 hospital beds in funding disappears.

Not content with these cruel cuts to hospitals, the Abbott government is slugging patients and families with a $7 GP tax every single time they visit the doctor. The only thing this tax will do is restrict access to doctors and drive up health-care costs for every Australian. This is explicitly what it is designed to do. I look forward to seeing those members opposite out every today, campaigning, talking to the same people I have been talking to—in nursing homes, and GP-surgery waiting rooms—about why they think this is such a great idea.

We know from Senate estimates the government has done absolutely no modelling at all on the impact a $7 GP tax will have on chronically-ill patients, GPs and emergency departments in public hospitals. There has been no modelling at all done on the impact this tax will have on rural and regional Australians.

We know that experts, from the Australian Medical Association, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners to the Consumers Health Forum, all say that this is very bad health policy. Professor Brian Owler, the new president of the AMA, has said of the GP tax:

In terms of the … effect on emergency departments, we all have fears that patients, instead of seeing their general practitioners, but also accessing pathology and diagnostic imaging services, will default to our public hospital system.

Now, our public hospital system is also taking a cut under this Budget, and it's going to be ill-equipped to be able to deal with any increase in demand that might be provided by the GP diagnostic imaging and pathology …

This is absolutely dud healthcare policy. It is bad health policy and it is policy that hits middle- and low-income earners and some of the most vulnerable Australians the most.

Australia's out-of-pocket costs for health are already high, compared with other OECD countries. So why would you want to impose further pressure on Australians who already pay high out-of-pocket costs? Why would you want to put a barrier in the way of what is the most efficient part of the healthcare system—that is, primary care—the part of the system where you want people to go to access preventative health, to manage their chronic disease conditions so that they can stay out of hospital. That is the most efficient part and the most efficient use of health services.

Why are we seeing the government pursue this policy? Because the Prime Minister and the health minister appear absolutely determined to pick apart, piece by piece, our Medicare system that we have had in this country for 30 years, creating a two-tiered health system that will end up costing all Australians and families far more. The tax will make it much harder for Australian families to see their GP. It also increases pressure on family budgets. It will also put additional stress on hospital emergency wards and our public hospital system. It will spell the end of bulk-billing as we know it today and will have a devastating effect on millions of Australians.

Those opposite want us to believe that, somehow, they are the best friend of Medicare. But no number of weasel words can hide the fact that the Minister for Health and the Prime Minister are ripping billions of dollars out of our health system and attempting to fundamentally restructure it. They are no friend of Medicare.

The health minister's narrative that health costs in Australia are spiralling out of control and are unsustainable is absolutely and entirely false. During our period in government we were able to ensure that there were 11,000 more doctors, 26,000 more nurses, and more doctors in rural and regional areas. We saw record bulk-billing rates, up to 82 per cent, better access and more access to general practitioners, particularly in those communities where previously access had been limited. The sum of $20 billion was invested in our public hospital systems. The government likes to say that somehow this was a blow-out in hospital funding. No, it was not. It was a deliberate decision of a Labor government to invest in public hospitals, to actually increase the Commonwealth's share in our public hospital system, because we knew that the share had been declining under the Liberal Party. And now we are about to see that share of Commonwealth contribution for our public hospital system hit an even lower point. The world's toughest antitobacco laws were introduced by our government and new medicines were made cheaper through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Back in 1984—

A government member interjecting—

You keep repeating yourself; that is just great. I can hear the member saying, again, 'No-one has any problems with co-payments.' Well, you go out there and tell your community why you are backing this GP tax. I look forward to it.

In 1984, when Bob Hawke was Prime Minister, he warned that without a universal healthcare system more than two million Australians were at risk of bankruptcy in the event of a serious healthcare illness. With the introduction of Medicare we ensured that universal health care was accessible for all. Today, some 8.5 million Australians, under the age of 30, have grown up with no other system but Medicare. They have known no other healthcare system. Now in the year of its 30th anniversary, Medicare is being pulled apart at the seams by the government. They want to end it as we know it.

What does a $7 tax mean for patients and families? It means that, for a parent whose child is ill, a pensioner who needs another prescription from their GP, a person in a nursing home who needs to access a general practitioner or a student who has a chronic disease such as diabetes, they may think twice about going to their GP because of the extra cost. It means that patients such as those are more likely to present at an emergency department or end up in hospital, rather than to their GP, because they have not received the care that they need, squeezing our healthcare system even further. Obviously, what you need to do is make sure that people have access to a GP; after all, it is the most efficient part of the system. Why on earth would you try to place a barrier in the way of people accessing a general practitioner? That is exactly what this GP tax will do. Essentially, it appears the government wants to introduce a two-tiered system: one system where those who have the means to pay will have access and another system where people will not have access to the entire system, which is a slippery slope to ending the universality of Medicare.

In the concluding minutes I have allotted to me, I also want to briefly talk about the government's record in relation to prevention. Millions of dollars have been taken out of—just terminated—the National Partnership Agreement on Preventive Health. We have seen the abolition of the Preventative Health Agency. We have seen $3 million taken out of the National Tobacco Campaign. We have seen members flirting in the media about the repeal of plain-packaging legislation. This government has absolutely abandoned prevention. We have slashing of primary care, slashing of public hospitals and ending of commitment to prevention. Where is this government's health policy? It does not have one. (Time expired)

See this speech in context