Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the statements made by the member for Mallee that the GP tax was mean spirited and that he does not support the increase to the pension age because life expectancy in his electorate, which is a country electorate, is 4.7 years less than for those Sydney. When the Prime Minister's own MPs do not support this mean spirited budget why should the Australian people?

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The truth, which members opposite are in denial about is that we could not go on borrowing $1 billion every single month just to pay the interest on Labor's borrowings. We simply cannot go on like that. The budget is this government's attempt to deal with Labor's budget mess. Where is Labor's?

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

I rise on a point of order. It is not possible to be directly relevant to this question without referring to the member for Mallee, who has threatened to cross the floor on this issue.

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

There is no point of order. As I said before, when you use the mantras that you are using it opens the question right up.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There were a lot of tough decisions in this budget, and it is good that members opposite have noticed that there are some tough decisions in this budget. There is no easy way to deal with the debt and deficit disaster that Labor has left this country. In the budget this government has carefully explained to the Australian people what we propose to do to deal with the mess that Labor created, and now it is up to the Leader of the Opposition to say how he will fix the mess that he helped to create. Let's face it: the Leader of the Opposition was a senior minister for almost six years in the government that gave us the six biggest deficits in history. He was the kingmaker who put Julia Gillard into the prime ministership. Then, when that was not good enough for him, he was the kingmaker who put Kevin Rudd back into the prime ministership. So if he was good enough and Machiavellian enough to make and unmake prime ministers, please tell us, Leader of the Opposition, what you would do to fix the debt and deficit disaster.

The Leader of the Opposition helped to make the mess. He should explain how he is going to fix it. We have been absolutely upfront with the Australian people about our solution for Labor's mess. It is time for the Leader of the Opposition to be equally honest with the Australian people. They are the fire; we are the fire brigade. I refuse to be impartial as between the fire brigade and the fire.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House on the government's commitment to hospital funding in the recent budget. How does this differ from alternative approaches?

Ms Plibersek interjecting—

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

That is not very parliamentary, either!

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

I thank the member very much for her question. All of the members on this side are very proud that in this budget we increase hospital funding every single year. And we increase it by a record amount. The fact is that in this budget hospital funding increases by over $5 billion or around 40 per cent over the next four years.

I am very proud that we have been able to deal with Labor's debt and deficit disaster, that we have been able to pay down Labor's debt, and that at the same time we have been able to increase by record amounts the money that we put into our public hospitals. The reality is, as the Prime Minister said earlier in question time: each year over the next three years we will increase hospital funding by nine per cent and, in the fourth year, we will increase it by over six per cent. We inherited enormous debt when we came into government and, as has been rightly pointed out, we are borrowing $1 billion a month just to pay the interest bill. If we did not make changes over the course of the next 10 years, that monthly interest bill would grow to $2.8 billion.

If we did not get Labor's debt under control, it would mean we would have to take tough decisions and it would mean that in future years we would have had to cut hospital funding—which, in this budget, we do not do. We are increasing hospital funding each and every year as we go forward. I am very proud of the fact that we have been able to manage Labor's debt and deficit disaster and that we will increase by $1.3 billion the funding that will flow to state hospital services over the course of the next year. In 2015-16 there will a nine per cent increase or more to $1.4 billion in that year. In 2016-17 we are increasing hospital funding across the country by nine per cent or $1.5 billion. We will increase hospital funding going forward on a sustainable path.

In this country, 10 years ago we had 2.5 million people over the age of 65. In 10 years' time there will 4.5 million people over the age of 65, and we have to make the changes today to make sure that our hospital system and our health system are strengthened into the future. But, if we do not deal with Labor's debt and deficit now, we will not be able to provide the $15 billion a year that we are providing this year, and which is growing each and every year, toward our public hospitals around the country. The coalition was elected to clean up Labor's mess not just in relation to the boats and the economy but in relation to the health portfolio as well. We will take money away from those great big new health bureaucracies that they created. We will put it back into front-line services. That is why we have put the health system on a sustainable path as our population goes forward.

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

My question is to the Prime Minister. The Australian Medical Association and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners have warned that the government's GP tax could threaten immunisation rates for children. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that childhood immunisation rates will not drop because the government's GP tax discourages parents from taking their kids to the doctor? Why should families suffer because of the Prime Minister's broken promises?

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again there were many falsehoods in that question. Let me quote from someone—I am not sure that he is a wise man but he has certainly said some wise things:

But there's a better way of operating a health system, and the change should hardly hurt at all. … the ideal model involves a small co-payment—not enough to put a dent in your weekly budget, but enough to make you think twice before you call the doc.

And the idea is 'hardly a radical idea'. It is an idea which certainly appeals to Labor's shadow Assistant Treasurer. I can understand that the shadow Assistant Treasurer could be fairly uncomfortable, but come on over! If you don't like it there, come on over!

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

Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order on standing order 104. When there is a question about immunisation rates, direct relevance does matter.

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

I would remind the member for Watson that when the mantra is added the question is broadened enormously. The Prime Minister has the call.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor's shadow Assistant Treasurer is not the only person who supports the government on this issue. Labor's former prime minister, Mr Hawke, the father of the co-payment, supports what this government is doing.

Mr Bowen interjecting—

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

The member for McMahon will desist or is warned.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are a whole range of ways to get immunised. Yes, a GP is one way, but there are also community health centres and other ways of being immunised. It is very important that immunisation rates stay up, and this government certainly supports that.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Education. What benefits will flow to students as a result of the government's higher education reforms?

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

I thank the member for Wright for his question. I can tell him that the higher education budget is all about spreading opportunity to more students to get a higher education qualification. How are we doing that? We are doing it through the biggest Commonwealth scholarships fund in Australia's history, through the extension of the Commonwealth Grants Scheme to non-university higher education providers, through lifting the cap on diploma and associate degrees so that it is a demand-driven system so that tens of thousands more students will have the opportunity to go to university and do pathways programs, and through abolishing the loan fees for VET students and for students in non-university higher education providers to access the Higher Education Loan Program.

Through these measures we will create 80,000 more places at university, and most of those will be filled by low-socioeconomic status students, by students from disadvantaged backgrounds and by first-generation university goers. And, yes, we are also deregulating fees. Every single dollar of those deregulated fees will be able to be borrowed by the student from the Australian taxpayer at the same interest rate as the government borrows that money on behalf of the student; they can pay it back after they earn $50,000 a year and they cannot pay back more than two per cent of their income at the lowest threshold. Imagine going to the bank and saying to the bank manager, 'I'd like to borrow a credit card for $16,800'—which is the average HECS debt in 2012—'but there are a few conditions that I am going to put on this loan. I'm not going to pay it back at greater than the 10-year government bond rate, I'm not going to start paying it back until I earn over $50,000 a year, and I'm only going to pay back two per cent of my income.' The bank manager would look askance at the customer, but that is exactly what the taxpayer provides right now for students at universities around Australia. For the 750,000 students, that is the loan that the taxpayer gives students so that they can go on to higher education and so they can earn 75 per cent more than the 60 per cent of Australians without a university degree. It is the best loan that a student will ever get.

The Leader of the Opposition, in responding to this, reminds me of Thurston Howell III. He is wandering around Gilligan's Island offering champagne to all his friends and saying, 'We can provide champagne to everyone.'

Mr Shorten interjecting—

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

The Leader of the Opposition will desist.

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

But just like Thurston Howell III, he does not have champagne to give. He did not have it in government and he will not have it in the future. We are being honest with the Australian public and honest with students; whereas Thurston over there thinks that he can have his cake and eat it too—but, unfortunately, he cannot.