House debates
Tuesday, 27 February 2007
Questions without Notice
Health Care
2:56 pm
Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Is the minister aware of calls for a single-funder model of healthcare organisation in Australia? Is support for such a model growing? What is the government’s response?
Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I thank the member for Bonner for his question. I can assure him and the House that the Howard government strongly supports Australia’s great Medicare system. It is not perfect but it is at least as good as any health system anywhere in the world. The principal reason that the Howard government is undeniably the best friend Medicare has ever had is that many members opposite now want to reform Medicare out of existence. Those who want to reform Medicare out of existence start with none other than the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the former shadow minister for health, the member for Lalor, who has been a consistent supporter of a single funder in place of Australia’s existing health programs. In May 2004, she said to the Tasmanian AMA:
The principal characteristic of a unified national health system is that existing Commonwealth health monies—
that is, Medicare, the PBS, aged care funding and healthcare agreement money—
are combined with—
Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
She had a bit of intellectual credibility and honesty, which the current shadow minister lacks. She said:
... are combined with existing State and Territory health monies ... and the combined pool of money is then applied to the population’s health needs.
Let us be quite clear. As far as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is concerned, this is the death of Medicare and its replacement by something resembling the UK National Health Service. But she did not leave that back in 2004. As recently as her Earl Page lecture last year, she said:
A Labor government would be prepared to examine the need for big changes. That includes a single funder for health care.
She even managed to con her then leader, the member for Brand, who said in his address to the Economic and Social Outlook Conference in Melbourne last November:
But shifting to a single public funder for health care is on my reform agenda.
So she supports it and the former leader supports it. But wait. Recently the Age reported the shadow minister for federal-state relations, the member for Fraser, as saying:
Mr McMullen said the single funding model, where the Commonwealth and states would contribute to a common pool of money, had substantial problems.
Well, good on the shadow minister for federal-state relations. ‘That would be a bad idea,’ he said. Who is right? Is it the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who supports a single funder, or the shadow minister for federal-state relations, who opposes it? I say to the Leader of the Opposition: you cannot wimp out of taking sides on this one; you have got to take sides on this one. You cannot be all things to everyone on this one. But he is a strange piece of work, this bloke. He supports the US alliance but he does not support helping America in Iraq. He says he is against greenhouse gas emissions but he will not support nuclear—
Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister was asked about health funding models. I ask you to draw him back to the question he was asked.
David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The member for Wills will resume his seat. I am sure the Minister for Health and Ageing will come back to the question. I call the minister.
Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I was making the point that the Leader of the Opposition should resolve this contradiction, like he should resolve so many contradictions. He says that he is not a socialist, but he is a Christian socialist. He says that he is an Anglican, but he has never quite resigned from the Catholic Church. Will the real Kevin Rudd please stand up—not the flunkey!
Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is that okay? Is it within the standing orders?
Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Yes, it is.
Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The comment seems to relate to breaches of 104 and 65.
David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The member for Grayndler will come straight to his point of order.
David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I will call the minister and ask him to come to a conclusion.
Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Speaker, I am happy to come to a conclusion. The Leader of the Opposition should come to a conclusion. Does he support his own deputy leader on this point or does he support his recently appointed shadow minister for federal-state relations? He cannot keep sitting on the fence on this. He cannot keep trying to be all things to everyone. I say that he should put his Dr Death skills into practice and kill off, finally and for all time, this very silly idea of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.