Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Continuing the health theme this morning: as I have alluded to earlier in the week, there is an absolute refusal from the Queensland government to sign up to the national partnership agreement for dental care. Of course, the federal government provides about 20 per cent of the total dental investment, so it's only a relatively small fraction of the whole, but, for some reason, Queensland is holding out—the last state remaining that won't accept the $240 million national partnership agreement that other jurisdictions have actually described as 'generous'. Not a single state has said it can't deliver their dental services without the help of the Commonwealth, and yet Queensland simply won't sign up.

What does that mean on the ground? It means that the 80-plus-year-old mum of a lady in my electorate called Joyce, who phoned me a couple of weeks ago, can't get an appointment for an extremely painful tooth and can't even chew on that side of her mouth. For an 80-plus-year-old lady, that's obviously very traumatic.

For many of us here, on reasonable salaries, it means just making a single phone call and getting care the same day from a dentist. But it's different—

Opposition Member:

An opposition member interjecting—

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, in fact—I'll take the interjection—it was the Labor government that scrapped the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme, for the simple reason that it was too effective. And this really does bring out—

An opposition member interjecting—

and I'll accept the interjection—this very important difference: for the Labor Party, it's fundamentally about treating poor people, and, for the coalition, it's fundamentally about treating sick people. As soon as there was this notion that someone on the minimum wage might have the temerity to access dental care, Labor shut it down.

I was in Tasmania, visiting Launceston, and there was this young woman working on the minimum wage who needed at least four bridges because of serious, serious cavity disease. She simply would not be treated by the Tasmanian government, who said: 'No, you have a job. Go away.' She couldn't provide a healthcare card that allowed her to have that emergency treatment done and she had to go through the humiliation of going to a service club. The local Lions Club raised the money for her to get the dental care she needed. So it's not about how severe your disease is in the Labor world; it's just about whether you are carrying a concession card. Then, of course, the door will open.

If you are in Queensland, that's not the case. In Queensland, no matter what you carry, no matter who you are, you cannot get a dental voucher that's funded by the Commonwealth for the simple reason that this state Labor government wants to bicker with Canberra. This is the kind of sideline melee we are all getting sick of. Fundamentally 90 per cent of this money is state money, but if you phoned today and asked for an appointment the answer would be, 'Yes, we can give you an appointment in six weeks or two months time.' It is as good as saying, 'Go away,' isn't it? And they'll say, 'There's no guarantee that we can give you a voucher for that visit.' This must be crushing for pensioners. The government can say, 'We offered the patient an appointment,' but they are making it practically impossible to get that care. What is being committed—$240 million—is significant, of course. It allows for 80,000 more dental cases to be carried out. But, fundamentally, in Queensland, they're not even doing what Victoria does for the same amount of money. There are 22,000 fewer dental cases delivered. That lack of value for money should be of great concern for all Queenslanders. (Time expired)