Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Minister for Health) Share this | Hansard source

If you can't manage the economy, you can't manage health. The member opposite talked about what was black and white in the budget papers. Well, it is all there in black and white in the budget papers for 2011-12—the link between the economy and health and the ability to manage it. Again, in the 2011-12 portfolio budget statement, under the previous Labor government, it says:

… given the current fiscal environment, the listing of some medicines would be deferred until fiscal circumstances permit.

They couldn't manage the economy and they couldn't manage health. Those medicines were for asthma, COPD, deep vein thrombosis, endometriosis, IVF and schizophrenia, amongst others.

I've been doing a little bit more research about the response at that time and what is interesting is that the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee held an inquiry into this decision of the last Labor government. What they found, at page 90, was that it:

… represents unacceptable cost-shifting to patients who can least afford to bear an increased financial burden.

They also said, at page 87:

This profound and ill-considered change in policy puts at risk affordable access to medicines for Australians, and will have significant consequences for the pharmaceutical sector, including research and development.

But it's more than just that. Submissions came from some of the most reputable organisations in the country, including SANE Australia. Their submission said:

The decision to defer the recommendation of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Council (PBAC) to list medications jeopardises the integrity of the PBS process.

Diabetes Australia said:

… we see the decision to delay listing of drugs which have been through the PBAC process as poor policy …

The Consumers Health Forum of Australia said:

Consumer concerns about the changes to the PBS listing process can be broadly summarised as follows:

1. Delays in access to essential medicines

2. Lack of transparency in the new process

3. Politicisation of PBS listing process

4. Lack of consideration of other healthcare costs likely to arise as a result of consumers not having access to essential medicines.

And then the AMA said, which perhaps sums it up perfectly:

Denying access to medicines that are proven to be both clinically useful and cost-effective is a crude and blunt instrument to attempt to control PBS outlays.

That is what the experts said, that is what the medical groups said, that is what the community groups said and that is what the mental health groups said in response to the inability of the previous government—a Labor government—when they were in power, to manage the economy, which, in turn, meant they could not manage health. That is fundamental. It is the exemplar of everything that is wrong with Labor when they seek to govern.

More than that, let's look at the record of what we've achieved compared with the previous government: record hospital funding, record bulk-billing levels, record Medicare funding and record mental health funding. Let us go through each of those. Hospital funding is up over 50 per cent from when Labor was last in power. I just want to repeat that—up over 50 per cent, from $13.3 billion in their last full year to $21 billion this year, to $22 billion next year, to $23 billion and to $24 billion in the third and fourth years of the budgets. And that means more services, more access to doctors and more access to nurses—so an over-50 per cent increase. So, when they make their claims, just check the budget papers because, when we check their budget papers, we see them denying essential medicines. But when we check our budget papers, we see an over-50 per cent increase in actual hospital funding. That's the reality. That's the truth. That is the undeniable fact, and that is what is actually occurring as a result of good economic management.

In addition to that, though, Medicare funding is increasing to record levels each year, every year, under this government. What we see is that we have gone from $19.5 billion under Labor to $25 billion this year, to $26 billion next year, to $27 billion in the third year and to $29 billion in the final year of the budget papers. So there's a massive increase of approximately $10 billion from Labor's last year to the end of the forward estimates within the budget period.

We've also seen, again, new listings on the MBS. There are new items for 3D mammography for breast cancer, new items for men's prostate cancer and new items for remote and Indigenous renal treatment—important steps forward, delivering real benefits to patients that actually make a difference to their lives. That's what's occurring when you've got a strong economy based on real jobs growth; you can actually lead and see the benefits in health.

More than that, though, we see bulk-billing, and what we've just seen are the highest bulk-billing figures on record—86.1 per cent, up from 82.2 per cent under Labor. So that's nearly a four per cent increase from when Labor was last in power to what bulk-billing is now. It's 3.9 per cent up, nearly four per cent, at 86.1 per cent. It's the first time in Australian history that bulk-billing has reached an 86 per cent level. That means that 86 out of every 100 times that people go to the GP, they go for free—they don't pay a cent to attend that service—and that's an important outcome for Australians. It's important in terms of access and it's important in terms of the ability to seek treatment. What we have also seen since 2011 is a 39 per cent decrease in terms of the rate of people delaying access to GPs. We want to drive that down further. But what we have seen is a 39 per cent decrease from 2011, based on ABS figures, compared with what it was under Labor.

There is a very important additional element here—that is, what we also see is that Labor has a proposal to rip the rebate away from all of the low-cost policies under private health insurance. They're not proposing a cap for private health insurance costs. They're proposing a 16 per cent increase because, if you take the rebate away, what you see is a massive impact on pensioners and low-income earners. And they talk about out-of-pocket costs. What will occur then is a major hit on out-of-pocket costs—not just according to us, but according to Members Health, according to Private Healthcare Australia and, in particular, according to the Queensland Teachers' Union's health fund. So these are not our views, although we agree with them. These are the views of the experts in the space, including some groups that are deeply aligned with the Labor Party.

You would see two things occur. The cost of private health insurance would soar under Labor, because Labor hate private health insurance, as we see from their record—they slashed the rebate last time. But also out-of-pockets would go up because, when you are driving up the cost of private health insurance, the insurers will seek to make savings elsewhere, and that means that there would have to be a reduction in the services that they offer, and that means an increase in out-of-pocket costs. So it's the patient who suffers. It's the patient who would be worse off under Labor. And it was the patient who suffered and was worse off under them last time, when they had private health insurance increases which hovered around the six per cent mark every year. By contrast, through reform that has changed the cost base for private health insurance, we have just delivered the lowest private health insurance change in 17 years. But we are working to drive that down further.

These are real reforms which have made a difference, in terms of record funding for hospitals, record funding for Medicare, new services from Medicare and new drug listings. On the latest figures, over 1,800 new or amended drug listings have been made since we came to government. That compares with what Labor did when they couldn't manage the economy, when they couldn't manage the budget, when they made the country suffer the consequences of their fiscal incompetence: they withheld new medicines for DVT, endometriosis, IVF, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, severe asthma and schizophrenia. When you do that, that shows you can't manage health, you can't manage the economy and you don't ever deserve to be back in government.

See this speech in context