Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Health. A constituent in my electorate, Ms Whitehouse, has complained to me that the Wanneroo GP Superclinic is still not open and is yet to see a single patient after being promised by Labor in September 2007. Can the minister update the House on how delays to the Wanneroo GP Superclinic have affected the provision of health in my electorate?

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 100 and I refer you to Practice on page 560. I have noticed the government has been using a style which allows their backbenchers to name constituents—no doubt for political advantage in their electorates, and I can partly understand that—but it is clearly out of order under standing order 100 and page 560 of Reps Practice.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, the standing orders say that the name of a person can be included in a question, especially if it authenticates the statement that is being made in the question. The member for Cowan was talking about a particular constituent. If we had not named the constituent, Mr Fitzgibbon would have taken the point of order that this might not actually be true. By naming the constituent it adds lustre to the question because you can be certain that the claim has been authenticated.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would just add—

Mr Champion interjecting—

The member for Wakefield will remove himself under 94(a).

The member for Wakefield then left the chamber.

For the benefit of the House, I would also add the words of standing order 100, which are important in this question:

… and are strictly necessary to make the question intelligible.

I think it meets that description.

Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—

There is no point of order.

Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—

The member will take his seat.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a new point of order, Madam Speaker.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It had better be.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the House for his intervention, and indeed his assistance, because on page 560 of Practice it clearly says:

Questions must not contain names of persons unless they can be authenticated …

What the Leader of the House has pointed out is that they need to be authenticated. Indeed, the question did nothing to authenticate the quote used by the member asking the question.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, thank you very much. No amount of defence by the member will defend the record of the former minister for health. This is a shocking record.

I want to talk about the GP Superclinic program—

Ms Plibersek interjecting—

And she's arcing up already!

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 90. The minister has just impugned a member.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the benefit of the House, the minister may just withdraw.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. My intention here is to provide a factual recount of the failings of the former minister. Let me start with the GP Superclinic program. We heard the other day about the government's failure to provide one dollar of additional funding for chemotherapy patients beyond 31 December this year. They were saying to patients who needed chemotherapy services in this country that they would not get the extra service they needed beyond 31 December, but it does not stop there. Their problem is—

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

Madam Speaker I rise on a point of order going to relevance. The minister needs to be directly relevant to the question.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, I would have thought that it would need a little more elucidation than she gave it, but I would ask the minister to be directly relevant to the question.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This goes to the competence of the former government. It does not just apply to the NBN or pink batts or the running up of $373 billion of debt; this government presided over a $650 million superclinic program that was a complete and utter failure.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, in 'Questions 555' of Practice it says:

… it is not in order for Ministers to be questioned on opposition policies, for which they are not responsible.

It was a page of Practice oft quoted in the previous parliament, as you would remember, Madam Speaker. And given that it was not within the question, it cannot be relevant and neither was it within his responsibilities.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would ask the minister to be relevant to the question.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So the superclinic the honourable member inquired about was announced, believe it or not, on 6 November 2007. You would have thought that for $5 million you would have got something by 2012 or 2013. But it is still not open. It is still not open for $5 million.

During that time we have had to Labor Prime Ministers, three federal elections and two Labor health ministers but not one patient has been seen by this clinic. I say to the Australian public: if you wonder why waiting lists have blown out, if you wonder why money has been wasted in health, it is because the Labor way was not to spend money on patients; it was to spend it on Labor bureaucracies. The problem was that Labor built up bureaucracies, taking money away from patients and not spending it on these clinics. We know that out of the clinics promised as far back as 2007, 10 have not even yet been started.

The incompetence of the Labor government knew no bounds. It did not just applied the incompetence in child care or in broadband or in relation to the economy, the Labor Party was completely and utterly hopeless when it came to the health portfolio. And there is a lot more yet to be detailed in relation to the former minister's failings.