Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer to the May budget decision to continue to pursue the increase in the PBS co-payment of $5 for general patients and 80c for concessional patients despite the fact that this measure, in the minister's own words, 'has no prospect of passing the Senate'. Given that the measure has, according to the minister, 'no prospect of passing the Senate', why was it included in the budget? Is the government hoping that it will be able to do a deal with the Greens or the Independents to pass the measure, or was it included simply to make the deficit look slightly less bad than it would otherwise be?

I also refer to the minister's statement in her press conference on 21 May that she was abandoning the proposed increase in the PBS co-payment because it had no prospect of passing the Senate. And I refer to her subsequent statement later that night retracting this and declaring that the co-payment remained until alternative savings could be found. Given these contradictory statements, both of which were subsequently repeated by the Assistant Minister for Health in Senate estimates, can the minister now clear up the confusion and state categorically for the benefit of the parliament and the public at large whether the co-payment remains government policy?

I also refer to evidence at Senate estimates from the minister's department confirming that the department is exploring further savings in the Health portfolio which can be used to offset the removal of the increase in the PBS co-payment from the budget. Can the minister inform the parliament which areas of her portfolio will now be looked at for these savings? Can she confirm whether these savings include further cuts to public hospital funding? Can she confirm whether these savings include further cuts to the health flexible funds?

Can the minister confirm whether these savings include further cuts to preventative health programs, which have already received devastating cuts in the previous budget? Can the minister confirm whether these savings include further cuts to Indigenous health programs? Can the minister confirm whether these savings include further extension of the freeze on the Medicare rebate? Can the minister confirm whether these savings include further cuts to mental health programs? Can the minister confirm whether these savings include further cuts to child dental benefits or adult dental health schemes?

I refer to the government's decision to freeze the Medicare rebate for general practice for four years. This is now, by our count, the fourth version of this attack on general practice since the budget last year, starting with the $7 GP tax, replaced by the $5 GP tax—which was a cut to non-concessional patients—and a $20 cut for short consultations. Can the minister explain what the effect of this will be on gap payments in bulk-billing? Is this not just another version of the GP tax, but through the back door? Is this an attempt to get GPs to implement a policy that the parliament was unwilling to accept? I note that the Medical Journal of Australia has modelled the effect of this freeze on GP fees and estimated that by the time the freeze ends it will result in an increased gap payment or new up-front fee of $8.43 for existing non-concessional patients who are being bulk-billed. Has the minister asked for any modelling on the effect of the freeze on gap payments or bulk-billing? Does the department or the minister dispute the figures and, if so, what increase does the department or the minister forecast?

I note that no consideration has been given to the effect of the GP tax on patients with chronic diseases, many of whom have already had difficulty in seeing their GP because of high out-of-pocket costs. So I ask the minister whether she can confirm the evidence provided by officials from her department that no modelling has been done on the effect this tax will have on emergency departments. I note that the New South Wales government has conducted similar modelling. Has the minister seen that modelling? Can the minister confirm that that modelling is accurate as to the effect that the GP tax would have on emergency departments? When the Prime Minister announced that he was replacing the original version of the GP tax he said that the government would make further changes to this policy without the support of the medical profession. (Time expired)

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Throsby for his detailed list of questions, and I will answer as many as I can. Obviously, those that are not directly responded to in the next four minutes will be referred on notice. I disagree with the premise on which the member for Throsby is basing most of his remarks.

I will start with hospital funding. Hospital funding to the states from the Commonwealth is going to grow significantly over the next four years and in total by well over 20 per cent. The important focus for me when it comes to the next health and hospitals agreement is working with the states and territories to make sure that the agreement is in the interests of patients. This is not about the political football that gets kicked around this place. This is about a deal that is in the interests of patients. To suggest that these are cuts is entirely wrong. There is no role for the Commonwealth, as a funder of services, to continue an activity based funding model the drivers of which the Commonwealth has no control over. It does not make sense. We saw the previous government under Prime Minister Rudd, in a desperate deal to get the states to sign up to the takeover of hospitals, add money layer upon layer. The most ridiculous example of this was designed on a national partnership around performance, which would have been good if there had been proper measures of that performance in place, but there were not. It was effectively like a company saying to its shareholders, 'We'll pay your directors on performance but, by the way, if they don't perform they'll get these guarantees anyway.' So when we came into government we took away those guarantees, because they were simply icing on the cake for which state governments had to do not very much at all. We have taken a step back and said, 'Rather than have this argument'—because we appreciate that we are here for the patients—'let us work on a strong agreement.' But to suggest that the Commonwealth has cut funding to the states for hospitals is absolute nonsense.

Likewise the member for Throsby talked about dental benefits. I know, as a person who is interested in preventative health, that dental is a key area. We have just extended the national partnership with the states for 12 months, while we undertake the discussions that I have just mentioned about overall health and hospital funding, for $155 million. We have also extended access for children under the Child Dental Benefits Schedule. That is really important, because dentists will tell you that if you can get somebody's teeth right by the time they are 18 there is much less work for them later in life.

The member for Throsby talked about measures in the budget and statements that I have made. I want to make it very clear that the measures we have in the budget are our fiscal responsibility. There was no confusion between my remarks on subsequent occasions. I simply said that, while I work hard with the crossbench every day and appreciate their input, I am not going to put measures into the Senate that they have already told me they will not pass. And we know we are not going to get any cooperation from Labor so, while we may have those conversations, we usually do not get very far. So I have said that, because of the debt and deficit left to us by the previous government, our determination to be fiscally responsible means that where one measure comes off the table another measure goes on. That will be the subject of a very productive consultation that I will have.

The measure the member refers is about the PBS—the cost of medicines. We have just concluded a significant agreement across the supplier chain of medicines, recognising very much patient affordability when it comes to purchasing often multiple scripts and recognising that it is vital that we drive the uptake of generic medicines—that affordability matters. The bill that is in the Senate this week is very much about that. We need to keep medicines affordable on a day-to-day basis because we also know that coming through the system are life-saving drugs the real cost of which is hundreds of thousands of dollars to the government. We will put them on the PBS and we will maintain our responsible approach. While I keep consumers and the costs they pay for their health front and centre, I also maintain the responsibility that I have to the budget and the national accounts as a whole. We will come up with a very strong policy.

The member has mentioned something that he calls a GP tax but I never have. Yes, my department has done modelling—and, by the way, it is nowhere near what is being claimed by the opposition in terms of increase. There is a pause on rebates—a pause that I have said I will lift at the earliest possible opportunity while maintaining fiscal responsibility.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The personally controlled electronic health record was announced in the 2010 budget. Since then over $1 billion has been spent on this record. More than a million people have registered for the electronic health record. I ask the minister what the Commonwealth has received for that $1 billion in investment for the personally controlled electronic health record? Can the minister inform the House of the findings of the review panel which Stephen Hambleton was part of? Can the minister outline the measures announced in the budget to improve the personally controlled electronic health record system? What benefits can a properly functioning e-health system in Australia provide?

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Boothby, who is a medical doctor. His contribution to health policy in the parliament is much valued by all of us. The government committed in the budget $485 million over four years to reboot the personally controlled electronic health record to clean up another the disastrous messes left to us by Labor. This is a significant investment: $485 million over four years to get this right. I am talking about a Labor failure nowhere writ larger than the e-health record. This is an exciting, meaningful microeconomic reform that will make a difference not just to people's health but also to the economy more broadly and allow us the innovation in delivering health that we know is coming down the track over the next 10 to 15 years. What we inherited was, yes, an electronic health record, but fewer than 10 per cent of Australians had signed up to it. People who listening to this broadcast might think, 'Wow, do I have an electronic health record?'. Yes, you have a unique identifier number, but unless you activate that and your health record gets attached to it then the facility that it provides is not working for you or for the health system generally.

What we have said we will do is move to an opt-out system whereby everyone by default is signed up to an e-health record. We are going to call it My Health Record, underscoring the fact that it is about the individual—their ownership of the health record and the need for them to have their say over what is on it and what is not. This goes to people's privacy concerns and it also goes to who gets access to the health record and on what occasions. We are moving to two significant opt-out trials. We are not sure where they might be but I note the member for Boothby's interest. We are going to make sure that it is working well in two significant regions of Australia before we launch what will be the national My Health Record, under which everyone will have a health record and their information will be on it. We know that we will have support on all sides of the House because this was Labor's idea; they just did not do it very well.

Consider somebody who turns up in the emergency department of the local hospital a bit disoriented and not sure what is wrong them, with their Medicare card but nothing else. That card can link to their e-health record and the admitting doctors can find out what their condition is, what life-saving treatments are required and what their entire health experience has been. How important is that? Even for a person who, like any of us, might go into hospital and come out, we know that the transition from primary care back into step-down community care and back to your GP just does not work well. How many times has somebody gone to their GP surgery on Monday morning to say, 'I was in in hospital over the weekend', expecting their GP to know all about it and in fact the GP does not, because the communication is clunky and does not work well?

I was surprise to find in my research on e-health that there is a major hospital in one of our major cities that is all paper based. Nothing whatsoever is done on computer. Come on: we need to move health into the modern world. But I was delighted to visit a new regional hospital—and I am not going to name where any of these facilities are—where a nurse who comes in and sees the patient in bed can pull out a computer from the wall and write the observations there and review which medicines the doctor has prescribed—and the pharmacist has an input as well. It is clean, coordinated, sensible and, when you consider that it will then feed into the wider e-health record for the patient as a whole wherever they travel and through whatever aspect of the health system across Australia, it is really exciting. I thank the member for Boothby and make the point that it has been estimated that this fully functioning e-health system, while improving health outcomes for patients, could save taxpayers $2.5 billion a year within a decade by reducing inefficiencies and could certainly save state governments an additional $1.6 billion annually.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In my previous questions I asked about PBS bills. I have not had an answer to those questions, so I ask the minister again. I refer to the fact that last week the government had legislation in the House subsequent to the conclusion of the Sixth Community Pharmacy Agreement and associated arrangements. As a part of that agreement, I think it can be fairly said, we will be paying pharmaceutical companies less for many drugs that are listed on the PBS. But at the same time we have a bill in the Senate which proposes to increase co-payments for PBS-listed medicines: $5 for general patients and 80c for concessional patients. Minister, isn't it true that, if both bills pass, patients will be paying more for their medicine?

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I actually have answered the question by saying that I stand beside every saving in the budget because of the responsibility of the task that we have set ourselves due to the inherited deficit from Labor. I have said that if a measure is on the table and needs to be removed because I understand that it will not pass, then it will be replaced by an exactly equivalent saving. I am not sure what part of that the member for Throsby did not understand, but I do note in his previous remarks, talking about inconsistency of statements, that there was actually a manoeuvre by Labor to doctor the transcript of what I have said on two different occasions. The member for Throsby, being one step removed from the process as an assistant shadow minister, might not be aware of this, so I am going to give him the benefit of doubt. There is no inconsistency in my remarks, but there is a transcript doctored by Labor suggesting that my comments about one measure going off and one measure coming on only took place after an imaginary conversation with other members of the government late at night. In fact, I said from the word go that whatever savings we have signed up for in our budget will be delivered, and, more than that, they will be delivered from the health portfolio if they are in the health portfolio. If one saving comes off, another saving comes on.

The member for Throsby talked about the Sixth Community Pharmacy Agreement, and I am pleased he has brought that up. That is legislation in front of the Senate today. He has quite appropriately noted that it is about cheaper medicines for consumers. I look forward to Labor's support and I thank them for their conversation around what is a very significant piece of legislation, particularly for community pharmacy, over the next five years. We are focused every step of the way on affordability for patients and on the cost of medicines, so I can reassure the member for Throsby, as I can all of the members of the opposition, that we will take not only a fiscally responsible approach but also a patient focused approach looking at affordability and patient safety. I look forward to having further discussions with the opposition as various measures pass through the Senate.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the minister may know, long before I was elected to any public office I was advocating for an appropriate full service hospital for the Palmerston area. One of my proudest moments was when Prime Minister Abbott, along with former Minister for Health Peter Dutton, stood alongside me and Chief Minister Adam Giles on the new, bigger Palmerston hospital site and confirmed a coalition government would provide $110 million towards the Palmerston hospital.

Minister, as you are aware, the Country Liberals raised the idea of a hospital for the Palmerston area in 1999, and the very next year they delivered a 24-hour clinic, which Labor promptly closed when they came into government. Labor held office for 11 years in the Northern Territory and six years federally, and during that time the only progress made towards a complete Palmerston hospital was a fenced off bush site. Labor intended—

Mr Champion interjecting—

You might want to listen to this, member for Wakefield: Labor intended to build a 60-bed hospital with no room for expansion. I will repeat that for you, member for Wakefield, because you were not listening: Labor intended to build a 60-bed hospital with no room for expansion. The Abbott and the Giles governments are focused on the delivery of a world-class 116-bed hospital on a 45-acre site, so there is plenty of room for expansion.

Mr Champion interjecting—

There is a big difference between a 60-bed hospital and a 116-bed hospital.

Mr Champion interjecting—

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

I would ask the member for Wakefield to extend a courtesy to the member for Solomon and refrain from speaking.

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wakefield keeps interjecting, and, as I have said, all Labor delivered was a fenced off bush site. As I said, there is a big difference between a 60-bed hospital and a 116-bed hospital—a point that has been wasted on those opposite. Minister, there has been a lot of scaremongering and deliberate misinformation from those on the other side about this very important project, which is important not only for the people of Palmerston but also for Darwin people as well as people of the greater Darwin area.

Minister, I have three questions. First, can you please confirm for the sake of those on the other side that progress on the Palmerston Regional Hospital is on track and that the facility will admit its first patients in mid-2018? I understand that the building will be completed in 2017 and it will take approximately 12 months to fit out the hospital, which I understand is a standard procedure.

Second, my Northern Territory colleague Minister for Health John Elferink and I have stated on a number of occasions that the Palmerston hospital is fully funded. Despite this, Senator Peris has suggested that funding is in jeopardy and that there is a $50 million shortfall. For the benefit of those who either did not hear or chose to ignore, would you please inform the House of the funding status of the Palmerston Regional Hospital?

Third: Minister, is it fair to say that you, your department and I are keeping a close eye on this project and that we are satisfied that the project is meeting the agreed time frames?

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is terrific to take a question from the member for Solomon, who has been on the case with the Palmerston Regional Hospital ever since she was elected. She, as a member for Darwin, is very committed and understanding of the need for Darwin to grow and therefore the need for the infrastructure to be suitable for a growing city, a vibrant city, a city focused on Asia even more after our Australian white paper on the north. It needs the hospital that looks after the Palmerston community to be an appropriate size. I thank the member for Solomon. I visited Darwin with her on many occasions and look forward to inspecting more of this particular hospital and this particular significant piece of infrastructure.

Yes, we are strongly committed to the delivery of this important new hospital. It is a $150 million project of which $110 million is being provided by the Commonwealth. We are working very closely with the Northern Territory Department of Health and Families to make sure that there is timely delivery. I have absolute confidence in the Minister for Health, John Elferink, whom the member for Solomon mentioned. We have had two or three meetings, and the Palmerston hospital is very much something we are both watching with close interest as it develops. The Northern Territory is responsible for delivery of the project, as is perfectly normal. The Commonwealth is funding the $110 million out of $150 million, but the project delivery is the responsibility of the Northern Territory government. We know that the government is very focused on getting this hospital built so it can service the needs of this growing community. We have set clear construction milestones as we would be expected to do, and those construction milestones will trigger the release of this very significant amount of Commonwealth funds.

I again thank the member for Solomon for her serious interest in all of the facilities in her electorate, whether they be for children, students, the community generally, the disadvantaged or, in this particular case, the hospital system.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wanted to ask the minister about the termination of the Medical Rural Bonded Scholarship Scheme and in particular the streamlining of nine existing health workforce scholarship programs into a single health workforce scholarship program and the adjustment of the various obligations of a return of service from four to six years to a single year of return of service obligation. My first question would be: was the streamlining of these nine existing health workforce scholarships done to hide the cuts to this area—some $72 million over the forward estimates in rural workforce scholarships? Has there been any modelling done on doctor and allied health professional numbers in rural and remote settings as a result of these changes? Is the minister confident that this will lead to more rather than fewer doctors and health professionals in the bush?

Some technical questions: under many of these programs, if a graduate doctor wanted to avoid their return of service—say, a six-year return of service—they are obligated to, in effect, buy it out and pay for the cost of their degree. Obviously, if you are reducing a return to service from six years to one year, that has an effect on a person or an individual who wanted to buy their way out of this return of service obligation and the amount that they might pay. I would be interested to know if the recipients of these scholarships will be able to buy their way out of their return of service obligations? If so, how much will they be paying back? How can, effectively, reducing someone's return of service obligation from six years to one year mean more doctors in the bush?

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you to the member for Wakefield for his question. I am delighted that he has an interest in the rural workforce, something that I know you and I share. It is vital that we get right the pipeline of doctors, allied health professionals and nurses to our rural areas. It is important that where we fund scholarships—and we invest significantly in these areas—those scholarships work for the individuals who avail themselves of that opportunity, the government and also the rural community. I will make some general comments about this measure of streamlining our health workforce.

What I want to say to the member for Wakefield is that we are redesigning and streamlining. The actual detail of every single scholarship in every circumstance is not something that I am going to announce today, because I undertake consultations and—particularly in this area—my assistant minister, Senator Nash, undertakes consultations to make sure we get this right. In future, most scholarship recipients will be required to agree to complete a one-year return of service in a regional, rural or remote area of Australia. I appreciate the member for Wakefield's point about a longer-term return of service, but our experience is that this has not worked particularly effectively in the past. What I would always say to junior doctors, interns and registrars about the opportunity to work in rural Australia is: 'We do not want to hold a stick to your head, we want to encourage you. We want you to see after your experience of, for example, a rural generalist practice that this contains an exciting opportunity for you in your professional life.' We know that there are ways that we can encourage doctors in those early years to appreciate and see what rural practice can bring them. While there will be a reduction in the funds available for scholarships under our new health workforce scholarship program, our scholarships will be much better targeted to priority areas. There will be no fewer scholarships for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people under the new program. We are creating a more flexible, equitable and efficient scholarship system for the health workforce with an obligation for its recipients to give back something appropriate.

The new scholarships scheme will provide more flexibility and better targeting of scholarships to meet priority areas such as rural and remote locations and health workforce profession and skills shortages. The majority of health students are able to complete their studies without a scholarship, so the vital thing for us is to make sure this is targeted. When I have talked to some professionals, they have acknowledged that the challenge of getting the allied health and nursing workforce out to rural and regional Australia is not really about a scholarship. The appropriate measures are in place to make the studies for nursing and allied health quite affordable. The issue is about that very big move. If you have not grown up or experienced life in the bush, it is about that move from city to country. The incentives that we can put in place are valuable, but they are not the whole picture. We know that we have to be responsible with our spend in rural scholarships and we are going to do that. I look forward to a better targeted system that does not have so much back office or administration funding and makes sure that it works in partnership with our other measures to get the rural health workforce right.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would just like to welcome the minister to the chamber. As the Chair of the Standing Committee on Health, it is appreciated when I get the opportunity not only to meet with you on a regular basis but to give you some questions on consideration in detail.

The minister visited my electorate in March this year, and I just heard the minister, in her previous answer, talking about the consultation process that she takes with all the legislation and changes that she is making to the health system. She took a consultative process with meeting with doctors in my electorate in March this year at my electoral office. That was a great example of the process of consultation that the minister is taking with the industry, and during that time we spoke about the medical school at Curtin University. It is great to see that the health minister and the prime minister have come on board and announced the Curtin medical school, which will be based in Midland in the electorate where the prime minister came over and announced it not so long ago. I appreciate and thank the minister for her support in that particular area, knowing that it flew in the face of AMA recommendations, but we have some great people from the industry like Fiona Stanley, who supported the Curtin medical school based in Midland. As Curtin University is based in my electorate in Swan, it is great that they were able to get that funding.

To move on to another part of your portfolio, which is sport—as the minister knows, I have a deep interest in sport—it is great that you were able to attend the PGA awards night that night in March as well. They were very pleased. The feedback I got from them was that they were very happy with your understanding of their sport, particularly during a speech that you made, and they understood that you got their sport, which is great. I think I also mentioned to you about the funding that they are looking for—a $10 million grant for their centre in Melbourne—which they will continue to apply for through the Regional Infrastructure Program and which I am sure that you will be happy to support.

As chair of the health committee during the last parliament—a couple of years ago—we did an inquiry into obesity. As the minister would know, obesity is a big issue in Australia. In particular, the 2011-12 Australian Bureau of Statistics' health survey revealed that in that financial year five million Australians aged 18 and over were overweight or obese. This accounts for almost two in three Australian adults. Of even greater concern, though, was the fact that this survey also revealed that one in four or 25 per cent of Australian children were also overweight or obese at this time, and these numbers are only increasing.

During that inquiry we heard from many people within the industry about ways to reduce obesity in Australia. One of the things that came out of that particular inquiry was that—Madam Deputy Speaker Prentice, you might be interested to know—a lot of it was to do with basically what goes in and what goes out, and effort is helpful in reducing obesity. Having athletic or physical activity in schools is vitally important to reduce the amount of obesity in our nation.

One of the other things that the minister might not be aware of is that I consider my electorate of Swan to be one of the most sporting oriented electorates in Australia. The reasons for that are that we have two horse racetracks in my electorate, the greyhounds and the new stadium—which we visited and had a look at—coming in Perth in my electorate. We also have the Perth Football Club; Curtin University, which has many sporting facilities; and quite a few schools which have great sport playing fields that are utilised during the weekends and most times during the week.

Encouraging children to participate in sport is not only good for their health and wellbeing; it is a great way to encourage social interaction and competition. As someone who spent five years coaching junior football, it is vital that I see participation not only by the children but by the coaches and parents, and also all the things that enable them to participate in sport and reduce obesity within the nation.

Minister, could you outline the progress and the implementation of the Sporting Schools program, in which the Abbott government will provide approximately $40 million in 2015-16 to increase the health and activity levels of primary school children through sport across this nation?

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Swan for his question about an important area, children's physical activity, and also for his chairmanship of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and the inquiries he is doing that really do feed into our policy area. On the question of health, physical activity and Sporting Schools, this program starts in terms three and four of this year. Registrations are open for interest until 26 June. Any primary school, club or coach in a community can register their interest. Importantly, this is about $100 million of federal government investment over 18 months and will really make a difference to children's activity. It is a strong statement by this government that we believe in getting children off the couch and in the role that exercise plays in happier, healthier lives.

I note that members of the opposition are here and I also note that they funded a predecessor to this, the Active After-school Communities program—something that was introduced by the Howard government and was a very strong program—but committed no funding past the end of 2014. This, effectively, is the only funding either side of parliament is putting up that really says, 'We want to make a difference.' I challenge and invite the Labor Party to let us know what they think of our Sporting Schools program and how they believe they should provide something equivalent and useful.

This is a program where every school can choose the sport that they want the children to participate in. The member for Swan mentioned golf. Golf is one of the sports but so are NRL, basketball, netball, AFL, athletics and so on. Pretty much everything that a school would choose to do as a sport can be picked up through Sporting Schools. The key—I think exciting—part of this program is that you do not have to do it after school or before school, so parents do not have to factor that in. You will know that your school will choose the ideal time. It might be before school or after school, but it also can be during school. The flexibility that schools have to deliver this program in their communities how, and dedicated to which sport, it suits them is going to be one of the great secrets of its success. All the evidence tells us that children who develop healthy habits early in life are more likely to retain them as they get older. We want primary school kids to enjoy sport, to learn skills, not just do drills, and to take that love of sport with them for life.

From the schools to the club environment this initiative will help create healthy links between children, schools and clubs so that our kids actually do develop healthy habits and can continue to engage in sport throughout their lives. We know that, while children are often active young, in their adolescent years sport often drops away, particularly as the stress of study takes over. Then they might move to go to university and, in their late teens and early twenties, find themselves in a completely different environment. To have the ability to connect with their sport of choice in the club of that particular community in a way that is meaningful, because of their history in the sport from their childhood, really does have an impact on their social and emotional development and most importantly on their fitness.

No-one is able not to participate in this program. I would encourage every primary school to consider what sport or sports they would like to be involved in, to have a look at the website sportingschools.gov.au and to find out how they can participate in their community. I am delighted that 70 per cent of all of the funds that we are allocating for this program—and that is $100 million over 18 months—will go in grants directly to schools.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 2 June, immediately after the budget, I received a letter from a constituent of mine, Ms Crystal Egens. She writes:

Both myself and my brother suffer from a genetic condition known as PKU. It is a condition that we have had all our lives and it's not curable. Since 2001, we have been receiving a payment of a grant of $256 per month under the Inborn Error of Metabolism Programme, which helps people with genetic disorders including, but not limited to, PKU. This grant from the government is to help us to get toward purchasing the low protein foods that our diet relies on to keep our protein levels low. These low protein foods are only available through a limited number of suppliers, some of which are located overseas, at a price which can be up to and even more than five times the normal price for equivalent foods found in your supermarket. I have enclosed a copy of the price list—

and I have a copy of that price list, which I am able to table for the benefit of the parliament today.

Companies which set out the approximate cost of each item note that most of these items are usually purchased in bulk.

The recent budget has announced that they plan to cease paying the grant connection January 1 2016, and our last payment will be received in December this year. The reasoning for this is the misguided view that for people with conditions like ours, there are now more products available, the costs have gone down and they have subsidised a range of new medications.

She goes on to say that these claims are not true. She points out the difficulties with managing the condition and the severe complications and side effects of not managing the diet properly, including 'mental retardation, especially with younger children whose brains are still developing, seizures, tremors or jerky hand and leg movements, hyperactivity, stunted growth, eczema and renal failure', and she says, 'So, as you can see, maintaining our diet is crucial for our wellbeing and development.'

She points out that there are only 904 recipients of this grant Australia-wide and points out:

The savings made, which I estimate to be at around $3 million per annum are far outweighed by the cost to the health system of people not having access to these foods and lapsing into any of the side effects or conditions if they are unable to manage their health conditions properly.

Minister, in light of this representation I have had and hundreds of other representations that have been received by members of this House from around the country, and in light of the fact that the grant is worth about $3,000 a year, the savings to the budget is going to be around $3 million a year.

I implore the government through you, Minister, to do the right thing by my constituents and to reconsider this cut and to consider the benefits to the government of this $3 million expenditure out of a budget that we have heard is well in excess of $9 billion. It is a very small expenditure overall, and the benefits to these individuals are enormous. The costs to the health system will be extraordinary if we get this wrong, so I implore the government through you, Minister, to reconsider this issue. I ask you now: is the government willing to reconsider and reverse the decision to cut funding to the Inborn Error of Metabolism Program?

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

Does the member wish to table a document?

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Leave granted.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to take this question from the member for Throsby, and I note that he refers to a condition called an inborn error of metabolism and that measures in the recent budget addressed the support that the government gives to those who are affected.

My office recently met with the Metabolic Dietary Disorders Association here in Parliament House, and we have kept in touch with the association since. I note that many of my colleagues on this side of the House have called me about this. You were among them, Madam Deputy Speaker, representing your electorate of Corangamite, as was the member for Swan, who we have just heard from. We have had telephone conversations, and from memory I believe I have had similar approaches from the members for Petrie, Boothby, Barker, Fisher and Macquarie.

I have taken these approaches very seriously, and one of the things that I have always tried to do as Minister for Health is to understand what the experience of an individual family or patient is. In having the conversations that I have had with our colleagues, I am aware that this is a very difficult condition. It difficult to live with. It is difficult for families and it is challenging for parents.

I have asked my department to provide me with some advice about how we might approach supporting those with this condition, without stepping away from what is on the record now in a formal sense in the budget. It is often children who are affected by this condition, but of course it continues into adulthood. I look forward to having more to say on this subject in the near future.

Ann Sudmalis (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, for many people chickenpox is a childhood disease. While it is very worrying for the parents at the time, most of us forget that we ever had it. Many in the community are unaware that the virus for chickenpox sits dormant in our nervous system for the rest of our lives—that is, unless we experience an event where our immune system is not as efficient as normal or just because we are aging and our immune system is not working as well as it did in our younger years.

There are many people in Gilmore who have had the misfortune to have this happen to them or to have a friend who has suffered. The virus does not come back as another bout of chickenpox; it comes back as shingles. Shingles is an infection of a nerve area caused by the varicella-zoster virus. The way we experience the re-emergence of the virus is pain and a rash along a band of skin following a nerve pathway. I read that the usual symptoms often go within two to four weeks. This certainly happened the first time I experienced shingles. The pain can sometimes stay after the rash has gone; this happens more often for people over the age of 50. Sometimes when you know what is happening, there is an antiviral medication that can be prescribed, but unless you really know what you are in for with shingles, you may miss the early signs, and then it is simply too late. This antiviral can reduce the effects if given in time, but many of our mature citizens are a tough lot and tend to dismiss pain or other symptoms thinking, 'They will go away if I am patient,' and they take a couple of painkillers and carry on.

Shingles is not such an easy disease to deal with. Shingles is sometimes called herpes zoster. About one in five people have shingles at some time in their life. It can occur at any age but usually occurs in people over 50. It is not common to have shingles more than once, but about one person in 50 has shingles two or more times in their life. I guess it is nice to know that I am a rare person; I have in fact had shingles three times—the last time following the nerve pathways in my face, where my doctor thought my eye might have been at risk. I have the greatest sympathy for anyone who has suffered from shingles and have worked hard to lobby for the vaccine to be part of the action taken by this government to address the problem of shingles. In many cases, an episode of shingles occurs for no apparent reason. Sometimes a period of stress or illness seems to trigger it. For many, the death of a loved one or the diagnosis of cancer leads to an outbreak of shingles, more than doubling their grief or their ability to deal with the need for chemotherapy or radiation therapy. Shingles really is a nasty, mean disease.

The virus usually affects one nerve only on one side of the body. The symptoms occur in the area of skin that the nerve supplies. Occasionally, two or three nerves next to each other are affected. The most commonly involved nerves are those supplying the skin on the chest or tummy; the upper face, including the eye, is also a common site. The pain is a localised band of pain. It can be anywhere on your body, depending on the nerve that is affected. The pain can range from mild to severe. It may feel constant and dull, burning or gnawing. In addition or instead, you may have sharp and stabbing pains that come and go. In fact, when I had shingles on my face I could barely lift my head off the pillow. The shingles rash typically appears two to three days after the pain begins. Red blotches appear that quickly develop into itchy blisters. The rash looks like chickenpox but only appears on the band of skin supplied by the affected nerve. The blisters then dry up, form scabs and gradually fade away. But I have known some poor patients to be suffering it for months.

Most people do not have any complications; however, there are many where the results are quite damaging to the quality of their life. Postherpetic neuralgia is the most common complication. It is where the nerve pain, neuralgia of shingles, persists after the rash has gone. This is uncommon for those aged under 50; however, one in four people with shingles over the age of 60 have pain that lasts for more than a month.

The older you are the more likely it is that it will occur, and sometimes the nerve control in the muscle is affected. The pain from shingles is unbelievable and for anybody who ever suffers from it, my heart absolutely goes out to them. Minister, given the problems that do arise from people contracting shingles, can you outline the measures in the budget to support people in my electorate, and also across Australia, who may suffer from this debilitating and horrible disease?

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to take such a personal question from the member for Gilmore. We often forget as we talk about lifesaving drugs and new cancer treatments that there are conditions that have been around for a long time which are incredibly difficult, challenging and painful, particularly as you age. I can remember talking to Australians with shingles and thinking, 'Oh well, that's probably not such a big deal', but in fact it is. I think the member for Gilmore has explained, in a very good way, how important it is that governments focus not just on the interventions that, if you like, cure, but the interventions that prevent.

We have funded the listing of Zostavax on the National Immunisation Program in the budget we are talking about today. Zostavax is used for the prevention of herpes zoster, also known as shingles, and will be available for 70-year-olds, with an initial catch-up program for 71 to 79 year-olds. Approximately 240,000 people will be eligible for this vaccine every year and approximately 1.4 million will be eligible through the catch-up program. Without government subsidy through the National Immunisation Program this vaccine would cost consumers over $200 a dose, and we know that our older Australians are highly likely to struggle with that. As the member for Gilmore said, they would be very brave souls and say, 'Well, I can cope with whatever comes my way. No, I am going buy something for the grandchildren and not spend $200 on my own vaccination.' This listing will cost us, the government—that is, the taxpayer—over $100 million in the first four years. It is a fantastic investment in the health of our older Australians.

Additionally, an adult vaccination register will be created to capture adult vaccination data, to keep track of vaccinations, to have a better understanding of what vaccinations are needed and to enable recalls for booster shots when required. This listing, as we know, is part of a broader package that includes $1.3 billion worth of new medicines, including listings for breast cancer, melanoma and blindness. This is a really genuine and serious approach by us to invest in the lifesaving drugs of the future, and those listings that were in the recent budget are just a slice of what we are doing over the next 12 months to two years.

Can I thank the member for Gilmore and say that I do not think I had been health minister for very long when she approached me particularly, with a note in her hand from her constituents—not talking about herself but talking about her constituents—explaining how it was really important that we get Zostavax listed on the National Immunisation Program. I thank her for her advocacy.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer to the government's intention to establish a Medical Research Future Fund, and the repeated delays in establishing this fund.

The government promised the fund would be established by January 2015, which would have required legislation by November 2014. But they only introduced legislation in May 2015 and then tried to rush this through the parliament to meet the revised target date of August 2015. The Senate has now decided that this bill requires proper scrutiny—quite properly in our view—ensuring that the legislation will now not come before the Senate until after the 1 August reporting date.

Minister, why did the government take over 12 months from the first date of announcing this fund to bring legislation before the House? Was this due to the fact that officials from the minister's department at Senate estimates confirmed that they only became aware of the government's intention to establish the fund several weeks before it was announced? I also refer to evidence provided at Senate estimates, that Australia's Chief Scientist and the National Health and Medical Research Council were not consulted on the fund or its establishment. Will they now be consulted at all times before distributions are made from the fund?

I also refer to the fact that, while the bill which established the MRFF was before the House, the government was amending its own bill even before it had been voted on to include:

The Australian Medical Research Advisory Board is established to determine the Australian Medical Research and Innovation Strategy and the Australian Medical Research and Innovation Priorities. The Health Minister takes the Priorities into account in making decisions about the financial assistance that is provided from the Medical Research Future Fund Special Account.

Minister, why was such a reference only included after the bill had been tabled before the parliament and only after the Labor members of parliament had pointed out that the bill made no reference to the promised advisory board?

I further refer to the fact that when Labor raised in parliament the omission of any reference to the role for the health minister in the Medical Research Future Fund the minister ridiculed this, insisting a bill to promote medical research was a finance bill, not a health bill. Can the minister therefore explain why the government has now amended its own bill to insert 40 references to the health minister? The amendments to the bill refer to the government taking into account the recommendations of the Medical Research Advisory Board but do not require the government to actually follow these recommendations. Ultimately, it appears that the funding from the MRFF is still determined by the finance minister, which opens up the prospect of grants being made not on research grounds but on political grounds. Can the minister guarantee that at all times grants will be distributed based on expert advice to promote medical research and not on political grounds? Given that the MRFF will not now commence until sometime after its already delayed 1 August revised date, can the minister give assurances that the budgeted distribution will still be delivered in full this financial year? Finally, can the minister confirm that the MRFF will not impact on existing medical research funding and give a guarantee that the MRFF funding will add to and not in any way replace existing budgeted funding for medical research?

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is just a disgraceful attempt by Labor to besmirch what is and should be a bipartisan initiative around medical research. I know that you have to pick your fights, member for Throsby, but why you would pick this one I do not know. Your record on medical research—I should not say 'your' because I do not know that you were intimately involved—you may not know that Labor's record on medical research is appalling. I think the most appalling act of all was in 2011, when you took $400 million out of the budget for medical research, and when there was of course an outcry from the sector you sheepishly put it back. There was another tricky accounting exercise of, from memory, $110 million designed to starve the sector of funds and make out that you cared when in fact you did not.

To ask me, as the Minister for Health, about the Medical Research Future Fund, I am delighted. Trying to characterise my comments about Finance legislation is pretty ridiculous because there are many pieces of legislation and initiatives in this place that go across portfolio. This fund is being set up and established by finance—and Treasury, by extension—so of course it is a piece of finance legislation. The operation of it all will involve the health portfolio because it will be around initiatives for medical research.

Labor can play games with this bill as it passes through the House and Labor can hold it up, but what Labor is doing is giving a clear signal to the medical research sector that the investment we propose in this bill, which has never been initiated anywhere else in the world and which will change the landscape for medical research in this country permanently, is something about which you want to go 'Ho-hum, we're not sure if we like it,' or, more to the point, 'Let's see if we can pick some holes in it and play politics with it.' What would have been much better would have been if Labor had stood up and said: 'We support this bill. There may be assurances that we seek'—and they, by the way, are assurances we could always give and we always would have given. Labor's comments about the advisory board and the Chief Scientist are ones that are quite sensible, but you did not have to make them political. You did not have to introduce them into the parliament and then hold up the passage of this bill as a result.

Of course the disbursement of funds will be in accordance with our research priorities. The meetings the Prime Minister is chairing—which include the Chief Scientist and include the education portfolio, the health portfolio and the industry portfolio—that I have attended are designed to set our national research priorities. As a government we will have those research priorities in place, and I expect that they will be relatively bipartisan, especially if the Chief Scientist is involved. It makes perfect sense that a sensibly constituted, industry supported advisory group would advise the Medical Research Future Fund, once it is established, about how it should disburse the funds. Let us remember that we have a goal—it is a challenging goal, but I know we will get there—of $20 billion in the corpus of the fund by 2020. This budget has announced that there will be $400 million over the next four years in disbursements from the Medical Research Future Fund. That is in addition to the funding that we provide for medical research through the National Health and Medical Research Council, which is about $800 million a year. This is separate from that. It is a separate process. It will have an advisory board but it will link to Australia's research priorities. How this could possibly be coming as any surprise to the Labor Party has been a mystery to me. The only signal that Labor are making on medical research is that they want to play politics with it; they do not care about it—and, when you glance back at their record and you see these dodgy manoeuvres from the past, you realise that they actually do not care.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The issue of immunisation is what I rise to speak about. As we all probably remember from our earliest science teachings, the amazing Louis Pasteur not only pasteurised milk and beer so that it did not spoil but also invented the rabies vaccine. He went onto introduce vaccines for fowl cholera and also for anthrax, which were scourges at the time. In fact, if you got bitten by a dog—as is still the case in some countries where they do not have regular vaccination—a very painful death would ensue. That man changed the course of medical history by introducing vaccines.

In Australia we have a wonderful vaccination program, but I am concerned that amongst certain sections of the community the idea is afoot that vaccinations are somehow bad for people and that all you need to do is eat your fruit and veggies and be strong and you will prevent yourself and your children from getting serious infectious diseases. In my years of clinical practice, and there were 33 of them, two were spent working full time as a paediatric trainee specialist. In my experience morbidity and mortality in little Australians suffering from the humble measles illness was a rarity, whereas these days it seems to be happening ever more frequently as people are not vaccinating their children, because of this popular misconception that vaccination is dangerous to your health. We all know that the ill-informed reports that vaccination causes autism have been totally discredited and debunked as myth. Yet that is a popular conception in many areas of the country. In some areas of the North Coast and in inner-city Sydney there is this idea that vaccinations are bad.

Measles is a wicked illness. The child gets really quite sick. With things like rubella, chickenpox and all the childhood illnesses, a proportion of people get long-term sequelae. Vaccination is so important. Not only is measles coming back because vaccination rates are dropping but also other illnesses like whooping cough are coming back with a vengeance because the prospect of herd immunity is vanishing in some communities. Some vaccinations give 100 per cent cover and some give less cover, but as a community you get an added benefit that if enough people are vaccinated the disease does not have a portal, or an area to break out—the so-called herd immunity effect. If you get more than 90 to 95 per cent of your herd vaccinated, the disease—whatever you are vaccinating them for—will die out, because there are not enough avenues for it to break out.

That is what has happened in humans. You only have to see what we have achieved around the world with the smallpox vaccination. We do not vaccinate people for smallpox any more, because worldwide vaccination has eradicated it. It had no avenue to erupt. Same with polio—we have virtually eradicated polio around the world. This vaccination across mass populations is really important. If we are to prevent childhood illnesses and the serious neurological or respiratory consequences of things like whooping cough, which little children actually die from because they cough themselves to death they are impaired so much, and the chronic illness this causes amongst adults—adults are even getting it—then vaccination rates will need to rise. It is vitally important.

What I would like to know from the minister is: what are the current immunisation rates across Australia, are these rates are high enough and what are we, in the government, doing in this budget to improve immunisation rates across Australia? This is something that everyone wants to know. They want to know that their children, and their preventable illnesses, are covered by our immunisation processes.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to take a question from the member for Lyne, whose 30-odd years in clinical practice have proved a valuable source of advice to me in the development of health policy. The member for Lyne was involved in my early consultations on how we might approach reviewing and reshaping the MBS, and I thank him for that.

The coalition has a strong track record when it comes to improving immunisation rates. The Howard government increased immunisation rates from around 50 per cent in the 1990s to around 90 per cent today. While immunisation rates in Australia are considered to be high at just over 90 per cent, this is still short of the 95 per cent needed to ensure herd immunity for highly contagious diseases like measles—a point very well made by the member for Lyne.

We should never rest on our laurels when it comes to our immunisation rates, and any minister who sees them hovering a little bit below 95 per cent should do all they can to run the necessary education campaigns to encourage Australians to vaccinate their children, because in recent times we have seen a rise in conscientious objectors and complacency. While we measure national rates, and that is obviously important, we also know that there are pockets—perhaps some quite close to the member for Lyne's electorate—where quite large numbers of individuals choose not to vaccinate their children. That is nearly always because of conscientious objection, and that conscientious objection comes from a very uninformed place.

The approach that we have taken has been a very determined one. We also know that, because of the number of vaccinations that children now have—starting from birth and going into their school years, before you might pick up adult boosters—it is really important to keep track of these. We are going to add to the national register; we are going to improve it and make sure that these vaccinations are included. I certainly know, as does the member for Lyne based on the communities that he is in touch with, that sometimes it is not conscientious objection that is the reason you do not have your children vaccinated. It is because in the chaos of your everyday life it is very hard to keep track of the number of children you may be responsible for and the number of vaccinations they all need to have. I certainly understand that is why the availability of a national register that can be interrogated by doctors is important.

We are also providing a program that gives incentive payments to doctors to round up those recalcitrants, bring them in and get them vaccinated. Parents are really giving me a positive response, saying: 'We appreciate that help. We don't mind a call from our local clinic saying, "We understand that your child is due for an 18-month booster, and we haven't seen them".' These things are really important, and they add to the general picture. I was privileged, but also very sad, to meet the parents of two babies who died from whooping cough. That, to me, was the strongest possible feedback from parents who, while suffering a terrible loss in their own lives, were determined that they would be part of a campaign that increased vaccination rates.

When I was a child, everyone had whooping cough vaccinations. When my children were children, everyone was vaccinated. It is quite alarming that there is this view that it might not be the best thing to do. While we know that encouragement is always the best approach, I am very supportive of the approach of my colleague the Minister for Social Services, with the 'no jab no pay' policy around not providing family tax benefits to parents who have not vaccinated their children, because in this area a stick as well as a carrot is needed.

We know that the responsibility does rest on parents, and sometimes when you connect that responsibility with a payment, such as family tax benefit, people's approach might change. It is vital that, as a government, we stay on top of this and keep our vaccination rates as high as possible. Remember that by vaccinating everyone who can be vaccinated, you protect those who cannot. People with autoimmune conditions and the very elderly cannot be vaccinated. By keeping the vaccination level up, we also look after those individuals.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On indulgence, I would like to associate all Labor members of parliament with the comments that have been made by the minister in respect to our national vaccination program and the importance of pushing back against some of the less-informed views that sometimes take hold within the community. It is a program which has always attracted bipartisan support.

I would like to ask the minister some questions about the Organ and Tissue Authority. Minister, you would recall that before the 2014 budget the government received a report from the National Commission of Audit which proposed, amongst a range of things, the merger or the closing down of a range of agencies within the Health portfolio. In response to that report, we assume, the government decided in the 2014 budget to merge the Organ and Tissue Authority with the National Blood Authority, a decision which left many within the community bewildered, because any cursory analysis of the two organisations shows that they have very little in common in either an operational sense or their mission. Notwithstanding that, the government decided to push ahead and last year announced that 1 July this year would be the commencement date of the new merged authority.

It is well known to all in this place that, to enable the merging of the authorities to proceed, you will need legislation. I have been closely monitoring the forward notice of legislation, and I note that there is no legislation in this sitting of parliament which would enable this merger to proceed, which means that the 1 July starting date of the new merged authority cannot occur. My question to the minister is this: do the minister and the government intend to continue with the merger of the National Blood Authority and the Organ and Tissue Authority? If so, when can the parliament expect to receive legislation to give effect to this?

I would also like to ask the minister a question regarding the recently announced inquiry into the Organ and Tissue Authority. All members of the place would be mindful of the extraordinary on-air resignation of the chair of the advisory board to that authority, Mr David Koch, who complained that he was not advised of the intention of the minister to conduct such an inquiry. He was surprised because it came in the immediate aftermath of an existing inquiry that had just reported, the National Audit Office inquiry into the Organ and Tissue Authority—a report which has been received by the government but, to my knowledge, has not yet been acted upon.

We are also concerned about the lack of consultation with any of the stakeholders. Can the minister advise who, within the clinical community, was advised ahead of making the decision to conduct an inquiry?

Indeed, were any of the jurisdictional bodies consulted ahead of the minister's decision to conduct the inquiry? Was anybody? We know the chair of the board was not consulted. Were any of the advisory board members consulted ahead of the decision to conduct this inquiry? We know that the Organ and Tissue Authority fulfils a vital role. We know that since its establishment we have seen a steady increase in donation rates throughout the country and that is a good thing. We have seen them come down in the last 12 months, and that is a matter of deep concern. We need the Organ and Tissue Authority to be able to focus on its main game without the distractions of the inquiry and the proposed merger. So I ask the minister if she can answer these questions: is the merger going ahead, why was the inquiry conducted and who was consulted?

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Anybody interested in the very vital issue of organ donation listening to the Labor Party's spokesperson might be a little bit bewildered, because the conversation is all about the merger of authorities or organisations and the review of another organisation and who was or was not told about it, when the real premise of the member's question might have been: how can we better work together to increase the rates of organ donation in Australia?

I know that the opposition cares about this and I am not going to suggest that they do not. I do not want to focus on when two authorities may combine or how they may combine. Those matters belong to the legislative progress through the parliament. I know it is sometimes frustrating when you are in opposition, because you do not know what legislation is coming up and you wait and see what is introduced on either a Wednesday or a Thursday morning. I have been there, so I understand it. I would simply say to the opposition spokesperson: please do not get stressed. We are focused on these authorities and the good job that they do and the best ways of performing their important roles.

The other thing that the member for Throsby talked about was an inquiry into the Organ and Tissue Authority and that is certainly not my understanding. There are no suggestions that any aspersions are being cast on that authority. The inquiry and the review is into organ donation in Australia generally and how we might better improve our rates. The conversations that we would all have, as interested members in this policy area, are around how we make sure that the connections we need to have between hospitals, donors and organisations work, particularly when living organs need to be transported across the country.

This is a complicated logistical exercise as well as being a complicated emotional exercise for the families and the people involved. I would love to see donation rates increase and I intend, through the work that I will be doing in this space with the Assistant Minister for Health, Senator Nash, to make sure that we put in place measures that increase our rates of organ donation. Any actions that you might see the Liberal and National parties in government taking are all designed to further that end. That is what this is about. That is what this organisation does, and no-one can rest on their laurels with the rates at the levels that they are in Australia today.

I spoke previously about the eHealth record, and may I say that that is also a valuable piece in this puzzle in making the connections between where donors are, where organs are and where hospitals are involved and then moving through that complex logistical pathway. The eHealth record is a perfect piece of reform that we are moving ahead with that will allow that.

If we could just imagine that somebody has thought about this, has had the discussion with their family and has made it very clear, they can make that statement and it can be part of their eHealth record—their own eHealth record because it is about the individual. Then it is very clear, which will help with those difficult conversations and those difficult decisions that families make at a time when they never should have to make those decisions, at one of the most distressing and challenging times of their lives. It is a very difficult question to answer for health professionals in the hospital system. I know the member for Throsby made a very bipartisan remark about immunisation and I am sure he would share the bipartisan approach with organ donation. He did mention members having been consulted about an inquiry and I have just come back to finish on that point. This is not about pointing the finger at individuals or members of a process; this is about reviewing the rates of organ donation in Australia, with the strong purpose of lifting them.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was uncertain whether the member for Canning was rising to ask a question of the minister or just finding a more advantageous seat in the chamber. I return to the question of the Organ and Tissue Authority. I agree with the comments that have been made by the minister about the importance of us doing everything within our power to lift the rates of organ and tissue donation within this country.

We have seen significant improvements through the establishment of the authority and the driving of a national strategy. If you talk to clinicians in the field, if you talk to any of the jurisdictional bodies, if you talk to any of the stakeholder groups, they will all acknowledge that we have gone ahead in leaps and bounds, but there are always things we can do to improve. There is no disagreement on any of those issues that the minister has responded to, but the issue on which we are seeking clarification and a direct response from the minister on is: does the government intend to continue with the proposal to merge the Organ and Tissue Authority with the National Blood Authority?

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Throsby has clearly run out of questions because he is repeating the previous one and I am going to give him a very short answer. The government has, as part of its program, the intention to merge the two authorities. The government continues to take advice, to seek advice and to consult—something that is unfamiliar to members of the Labor Party, but something that is very much a part of our modus operandus. I again come back to my previous comments to the member for Throsby. I know how distressing it is when you do not feel that you know exactly what is going on, but that might be an area that he just has to get used to.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Debate adjourned.