Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to raise an issue of great concern in my local community and, indeed, of great concern right around the country. This is this government's appalling proposal to bring in co-payments for Medicare. This effectively dismantles our universal healthcare system that has served our country so well.

We know that for many years it was coalition policy to dismantle Medicare. In 1996, however, John Howard saw the light and realised that our Medicare universal healthcare system should not be dismantled. Unfortunately, those on the other side now have not had such wisdom. The minister has now really introduced a very retrograde step by introducing co-payments.

I hear from the minister that it is important to have a price signal out there—a price signal to get people to think twice about whether or not they really need to go to a doctor. Well, this is going to have significant impacts on communities right around the country and particularly in my local community. Of course, those who will question whether or not they can afford it are those on the lowest incomes. It is people who are perhaps on low incomes or who have large families who will question whether they really need to go and see a doctor. That can have devastating impacts on our health and the health of this country. That is what I am so confused about.

If we want to ensure that the burden of disease reduces on our country then surely we should be investing in prevention. This is what going to see the GP is often about. It is about getting a test, or a prostate examination, a pap smear or, indeed, being immunised. Under the new co-payment arrangement, it will cost $7 each time you go to the doctor. Those on the other side have said that it is not very much; it is just a couple of middies or a couple of packets of cigarettes. They are not living in the real world. At the train stations last week, people were directly telling me that this government is out of touch. They do not understand what it is like to live in the real world. One example, a hypothetical, is a trip to the doctor where you would pay $7; you then have to get a blood test, which would be another $7; and then you have to go back to the doctor to the get the results, which would be another $7. So what we are really talking about is a $21 fee to go to the doctor.

It is not just me saying this and it is not just the Labor Party saying this. Indeed, many medical organisations have come out clearly stating their opposition to this measure. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners said that every Australian should feel comfortable about accessing clinically appropriate health care, regardless of location, cost or timing—something this model has completely undercut. The Rural Doctors Association Vice President, Dr John Hall, said the co-payment will impact significantly on rural patients, who are amongst the poorest in our country, making it difficult for them to afford basic health care. The Rural Doctors Association also said that the scheme will lead to those unable to afford a GP consultation seeking treatment at their local hospitals, resulting in extra pressure on the hospital system. As we know, seeing a GP is a lot cheaper than presenting to a hospital and taking up a hospital bed.

It is a very short-sighted policy of those on the other side to say, 'Let's have a price point to deter people from going to the doctor' when this is going to have ramifications in other parts of the system. Of course, the answer of those on the other side is: 'Let's just charge them to go to emergency. Let's just put another cost barrier in the way of them getting decent health care.' I fundamentally reject that principle. I do not believe that your health care, whether or not you get good health care or, indeed, whether or not you live or die, should rely on how much money you have in your pocket. I think it is that serious that we need to be paying a lot of attention to this.

In my electorate I am running a petition. I have had hundreds and hundreds of people sign that petition in a very short period of time. I will ensure that I report those results to the House. People are clearly saying that they do not believe that a co-payment will achieve the outcomes that they want, which is good health care for everyone, wherever they live and whatever means they have. We want to ensure that they get decent health care. We do not want to become America. The Americanised system costs more and it delivers less to low-income families. So I urge the government to listen to the people of Australia.

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak about the benefits that the government's Work for the Dole program will deliver for the electorate of Corangamite. I also want to give an update on how incredibly well the program has been received by my community. The Geelong region, including towns such as Lorne, Anglesea, Winchelsea, Bannockburn and Smythesdale in the electorate of Corangamite, which I so proudly represent, shall be among the first of 18 areas in Australia where we will roll out the Work for the Dole program.

The coalition government firmly believes that all Australians who are capable of working should be working. This is in contrast, of course, to Labor's work-for-the-dole program, which was a mickey mouse scheme, where there was no accountability. Like so many of Labor's other programs, it simply did not deliver. We are determined that young people should not languish on the dole. We do not want them to fall through the cracks. We want our young people to know that we care.

From 1 July 2004, young men and women in the Geelong region will be required to work 15 hours a week on a Work for the Dole program. Work for the Dole is an important part of the government's plan to help young job seekers gain the skills and experience they need to move from welfare to work and to make a positive contribution to their local community. Very importantly, it will also help to build self-confidence and self-esteem, and we know how important that is for young men and women entering the workforce. Then , from 1 July 2015, all job seekers aged 18 to 30 in receipt of Newstart and youth allowance will be required to undertake work for the dole for 25 hours per week. Work-for-the-dole places will be sourced in not-for-profit organisations, local councils and federal and state agencies.

It is very commendable that this program has been received so positively in my community. There have been some ringing endorsements from community leaders. Today's Geelong Advertiserquoted Matchworks' general manager Michael Wasley as saying that the work-for-the-dole program would provide 'meaningful skill development opportunities'. He further said:

It potentially provides them with a good opportunity to get active and do something positive and then to be able to say to a potential employer at an interview, ‘I haven’t been doing little over the last few months, I’ve been participating and volunteering in a work for the dole program.’

These views are also shared by Michael Martinez, the CEO of Diversitat, a very important agency in our region. In a column for the Advertiser today he also said:

The idea that young people should be in training or working is one with which we would all agree.

He echoed those sentiments on Channel Nine news last night, when he said:

Our aim is to get young people and everybody to reach their full potential. You don't reach your full potential from sitting at home.

The Mayor of the City of Greater Geelong, Darryn Lyons, has also thrown his full support behind the program. Mayor Lyons said: 'We've got to get off our backsides and we've got to do the great Aussie thing, work and contribute to our society. And that's the way it's going to be in this town.'

This is a very positive program for our region. The Geelong region has been hit by some serious job losses. We are very focused on the important opportunities that we want to deliver to young people. There have been some challenges, but there are also some wonderful things happening in my electorate—opportunities delivered by the Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund. There is also the $155 million growth fund, which is another important initiative announced in the budget to ensure that we can deliver the job opportunities in advanced manufacturing for the next generation of manufacturers. I look forward to supporting these programs as they are rolled out. As we know, there are some important safety nets in the work-for-the-dole program and I am very proud to be part of a government that is caring about young people, about delivering important opportunities and about ensuring that young people do not languish month after month, year after year, on the dole, that we actively engage in caring for their interests and that they have a positive future.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The most important productivity driver, wealth creator, improver of living standards and launchpad for economic growth is, without a doubt, education. It is now well accepted that there is a direct correlation between a person's quality of life, the strength of the economy and the educational standards of a nation. This government's budget has smashed our education system: from kindy to professor education standards in Australia will suffer because of this government's budget. At all levels of education, from kindergarten right through the highest levels of university, funding has been removed, programs have been cut and, most importantly, it will be more difficult for poorer Australians to get an education.

In early childhood education we know the value of early intervention. All of us understand that the value of early intervention for kids with disabilities and kids with learning difficulties can achieve remarkable results in their educational standards. To make early childhood education beyond the reach of many, particularly low-income Australians, is unconscionable, but that is exactly what this budget does.

There are cuts to a number of programs that ensure access to early childhood education, in particular, cuts to the outside-school-hours care program—$450 million cut from that. The Indigenous child and family centres program—$78 million cut from that. Universal access to preschool—almost $500 million per year discontinued from that. The JET program, the Jobs, Education and Training Child Care Fee Assistance program—places cut. The Community Support Programme—$157 million cut from that. The HECS-HELP benefit, which includes subsidies for early childhood education degrees—$87 million cut from that. That is just an example of some of the cuts to early childhood education that have been undertaken by this government.

In school education the government simply do not understand the connection between good educational standards at school and proper funding for school education. They have abandoned our neediest kids in this budget—kids who are struggling in our schools. The kids who are performing badly in literacy and numeracy have traditionally been the forgotten pupils in our school education system when it comes to funding, and they are going to be worse off because of the government's approach to schools funding—the ideological view that all kids have the opportunity to thrive if they apply themselves at school and work hard.

That is an approach that is enshrined in the old socioeconomic-status model, which has not worked and has resulted in a reduction in our educational standards. It is misguided and it is unfair to our kids. It is also out of touch with reality. That was the whole purpose of the Gonski reforms: to put money in where it is needed. David Gonski made some comments in a speech last week, which perfectly highlighted the deficiencies in this government's approach to education. He said:

This is unfortunate. I sincerely hope that in the period between now and 2017 the Federal Government will change the presently budgeted position.

He went on to say:

To say that many of the schools in the state systems needed further assistance, both in money and tender loving care, is to me an understatement.

…   …   …

There needs to be a commitment to a properly funded needs-based aspirational system and a failure to do so will be to our detriment.

That is the view of David Gonski, one of the most respected business people in this country, who undertook the most comprehensive study of our school education system. That is an indictment of this government's approach to education in our schools, which completely blows the reforms out of the water.

In university education we are seeing a two-tier system develop: those who can afford to get a university education and those who cannot. The government is deregulating fees and that will push them up. What that means is the more popular courses will be out of the reach of poor kids. The government is saying that you will be able to afford it because you do not have to pay up-front, but you do not see poor people driving around in Lamborghinis or buying $300 million houses. Why? Because they cannot afford the mortgage, and low-income people will not be able to afford the debt that comes with a popular university degree. (Time expired)