Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I commend the member for Paterson for that. I hope the Minister for Health takes up that kind invitation. It would be good for him to get out on the ground. I invite him up to the Territory as well. I'll get to that later, but there are obviously some difficulties that we face with our health system that the minister would do well to have a better look at.

I congratulate you, Deputy Speaker, for trying to put across the government's commitment to Medicare. It is great to see so much love in the House for the Medicare system, especially from those opposite. It almost feels like the 2014 budget never happened. Conservative governments and the labour movement have a fairly predictable relationship around Medibank and Medicare: we build it and you try to break it down. We introduced the universal healthcare system, of course, in the face of opposition from those opposite, from the Liberal and National parties, and we will defend it to our last breath.

Despite the efforts of those opposite over the years, as recent as 2014, Medicare remains so important to Australians. It is something that Australians can be proud of. I'm not saying it's perfect, but in the greater scheme of things, it is fair. Wherever I go, when I hear people return from overseas, they're always so thankful that we've defended our Medicare system over the years.

We can obviously improve the system, particularly in the Territory. Recent analysis by the Mitchell Institute showed that the current system does not properly factor in the needs of the Territory. We have, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, a much larger health burden to carry, compared with the rest of the country, yet we receive only 65c per person in Medicare payments, which is the lowest of any jurisdiction in the country. Overall, according to that report by the Mitchell Institute, there's an $82 million shortfall for medical services in the Northern Territory. I don't think anyone would doubt that there is inequality of health outcomes and services between rural and metropolitan areas. Addressing that has to be the No. 1 priority of the government.

We all know that life expectancy falls as remoteness increases. That's why the definitions the member for Paterson was talking about are important. It is important, whether something is classified as metro, rural or remote, because it means the system is able to apply sufficient resources. We all know that out-of-pocket health costs are increasing for Australians, who currently spend over $30 billion a year on such costs. My friend the member for Gilmore mentioned a little bit earlier that out-of-pocket costs are going up something like 25 per cent. This means Australians are paying a record amount out of their own pockets at a time when wages are not increasing. It is a problem.

In the time left, I'd like to flag the Medicare Benefits Schedule review. I'm worried about this review. I'm worried that the federal government is considering a recommendation to reform item 288, if you could take that on notice, please, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is around the provision of an incentive fee of 50 per cent for consultations, by psychiatrists, delivered via video conference to telehealth-eligible areas in Australia. The item is proving valuable by incentivising psychiatrists to provide services to rural and regional places, such as Darwin. So, for veterans and a whole range of other clientele, if that recommendation is taken on, that will decrease the incentive. There are a lot of no-shows in telehealth, so it will make it unviable for the providers of those services, and I ask that that recommendation not be taken up by the government.

See this speech in context