Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the outset I thank Mrs Sandra Barrett of Minto for raising with me an issue that I was totally unaware of previously but which, if trends in this country continue, will be of increasing importance. I refer to the question of Medicare coverage on Australian cruises. In a recent report, Deloitte Access Economics commented:

The Australian cruise sector has undergone strong growth in the last five years … against a backdrop of stagnation in the wider tourism sector …

That is obviously, crucially, to do with the Australian dollar over that period. In 2010-11, cruises contributed $830 million to the Australian economy in value adding, contrasting with $580 million in 2007-08. Passenger growth has been such that passenger days at port in Australia in 2005 were 400,000 and by 2009 they were 1.1 million. It is estimated that between 2013-14 and 2019-20 there will be less pronounced growth but it will still be at seven per cent. What that is saying is that large numbers of Australians are getting on cruise boats every week.

Sandra Barrett's experience is one that people should be aware of and something that we should perhaps find some solution to. The smartraveller.gov.au web site advises that cruise passengers should take out travel insurance. It goes on to say:

Medicare benefits are only payable to cruise passengers if you're travelling between two Australian ports. They are not payable for journeys between an Australian port and a foreign port or between two foreign ports.

That is as we would expect it. The problem arises that many of the medical staff of these cruise ships do not have accredited Medicare provider numbers, so we have a situation where Sandra was up for $1,700. Perhaps if she had been going on a longer cruise than Sydney to Melbourne she would have given greater emphasis to having travel insurance, but I would not think it unusual that Australians travelling to the Melbourne Cup or some cricket event would decide not to take out travel insurance for such a short journey in Australian waters.

The minister has responded fairly swiftly, and he has given me the sort of reply that would come from either side of politics in government:

Professional services provided on a domestic journey by a Medicare eligible provider are therefore eligible for Medicare benefits. However, health care arrangements on cruise ships are a matter for the ship's operator, and they are under no obligation to employ Medicare eligible medical practitioners.

As a general proposition, that might be understandable, but I would think that governments should be more proactive in encouraging them, particularly those that are predominantly on the Australian market, in a situation where the government's own site does not in any way imply that you may not be covered. It does not go into an explanation that Medicare will only cover you if the medical staff of the boat have Australian provider numbers.

The numbers involved in this are burgeoning. I got off a train last week outside my electoral office and there were a number of people there who had just been on a cruise. Those numbers are very much growing, and more and more Australians are being affected. There should be a bit more interest in this by the Department of Health and they should try to encourage these operations to get Australian provider numbers or make sure the Australian public understand the situation. When you talk about the need for travel insurance, you should be a bit more definitive about it so that people are aware of these issues.

I want to turn to another subject. One of the traditional complaints and excuses by the Australian public about our perennial defeats by New Zealand rugby union teams is the haka. It supposedly puts off the Australians and that is the only reason why they lose games every now and again! In my electorate there is a significant New Zealand population and, more specifically, a Maori population. I want to congratulate the Australian Maori National Committee of Performing Arts for an event held over the weekend in Liverpool, at the Whitlam centre. It is quite a victory for Australian based haka groups to be given the right to compete in the New Zealand championships. Nine teams from three states—Queensland, Western Australia and New South Wales—competed last week for the right to go to New Zealand to represent Australia at that event in Christchurch. It is pleasing that that culture is maintained here and that people can get groups together—nine teams, significant numbers of people—participating and supporting it. I noticed the attendance of the New Zealand high commissioner, and that was indicative of the work being done by this group to make sure that the rights of Australian Maoris were driven home at this event. The Liverpool based Samoan consul general was also in attendance.

Finally I want to briefly cover the defunding of the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia, described by former MP Mal Washer as a devastating blow. Governments have to make decisions. There are budgetary stipulations, requirements et cetera. But, while there may be things that we can in this country afford to dismiss and basically put up against the wall, this would be one body that I would have thought should have gained greater consideration. I have had constituents raise this with me quite genuinely—people who work in this sector. This is a group that has worked on minimisation of alcohol and other addictions. It has done professional development work. It has a significant information-sharing role and a library. There have been a variety of excuses as to why it was defunded, including its accountability and the claim that there are multiple alternative sources of information. All of these have been trotted up. The bottom line, I would hope, is that it is a budgetary decision rather than a bowing to corporate interest in the alcohol and drug sector. It also is an organisation that has a proud history and significant involvement in the national campaign against drugs—later known as the National Drug Strategy. It was there, it was active, it was crucial in making sure it would operate.

On 3 March this year the National Drug Sector Information Service, which included operations such as the National Inhalants Information Service, ceased to exist; they were abolished. As I said, the library and the collection of materials that they had will basically remain unattended for the future. I think this is a serious decision by the government. Forty-seven years of work—pioneering, worthwhile—in an area that affects many people of all ages, all types, all incomes and all ethnicities is basically condemned due to lack of support. It will have very serious long-term outcomes. I would hope that the government, if it gains a situation where it feels its budgetary situation is better, makes sure that bodies such as this are funded, that things like this do not fall by the wayside and that people are assisted in this crucial sector.