Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Hansard source

I refer to the May budget decision to continue to pursue the increase in the PBS co-payment of $5 for general patients and 80c for concessional patients despite the fact that this measure, in the minister's own words, 'has no prospect of passing the Senate'. Given that the measure has, according to the minister, 'no prospect of passing the Senate', why was it included in the budget? Is the government hoping that it will be able to do a deal with the Greens or the Independents to pass the measure, or was it included simply to make the deficit look slightly less bad than it would otherwise be?

I also refer to the minister's statement in her press conference on 21 May that she was abandoning the proposed increase in the PBS co-payment because it had no prospect of passing the Senate. And I refer to her subsequent statement later that night retracting this and declaring that the co-payment remained until alternative savings could be found. Given these contradictory statements, both of which were subsequently repeated by the Assistant Minister for Health in Senate estimates, can the minister now clear up the confusion and state categorically for the benefit of the parliament and the public at large whether the co-payment remains government policy?

I also refer to evidence at Senate estimates from the minister's department confirming that the department is exploring further savings in the Health portfolio which can be used to offset the removal of the increase in the PBS co-payment from the budget. Can the minister inform the parliament which areas of her portfolio will now be looked at for these savings? Can she confirm whether these savings include further cuts to public hospital funding? Can she confirm whether these savings include further cuts to the health flexible funds?

Can the minister confirm whether these savings include further cuts to preventative health programs, which have already received devastating cuts in the previous budget? Can the minister confirm whether these savings include further cuts to Indigenous health programs? Can the minister confirm whether these savings include further extension of the freeze on the Medicare rebate? Can the minister confirm whether these savings include further cuts to mental health programs? Can the minister confirm whether these savings include further cuts to child dental benefits or adult dental health schemes?

I refer to the government's decision to freeze the Medicare rebate for general practice for four years. This is now, by our count, the fourth version of this attack on general practice since the budget last year, starting with the $7 GP tax, replaced by the $5 GP tax—which was a cut to non-concessional patients—and a $20 cut for short consultations. Can the minister explain what the effect of this will be on gap payments in bulk-billing? Is this not just another version of the GP tax, but through the back door? Is this an attempt to get GPs to implement a policy that the parliament was unwilling to accept? I note that the Medical Journal of Australia has modelled the effect of this freeze on GP fees and estimated that by the time the freeze ends it will result in an increased gap payment or new up-front fee of $8.43 for existing non-concessional patients who are being bulk-billed. Has the minister asked for any modelling on the effect of the freeze on gap payments or bulk-billing? Does the department or the minister dispute the figures and, if so, what increase does the department or the minister forecast?

I note that no consideration has been given to the effect of the GP tax on patients with chronic diseases, many of whom have already had difficulty in seeing their GP because of high out-of-pocket costs. So I ask the minister whether she can confirm the evidence provided by officials from her department that no modelling has been done on the effect this tax will have on emergency departments. I note that the New South Wales government has conducted similar modelling. Has the minister seen that modelling? Can the minister confirm that that modelling is accurate as to the effect that the GP tax would have on emergency departments? When the Prime Minister announced that he was replacing the original version of the GP tax he said that the government would make further changes to this policy without the support of the medical profession. (Time expired)

See this speech in context