Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Can I say firstly I think the questions put by Senator Siewert towards the end of her contribution are very relevant ones and they deserve a comprehensive and considered answer from the government. I rise to speak briefly on this motion. The previous government’s dental scheme relied on the referral of patients by GPs so that dental services could be accessed through Medicare according to demand. This plan cost $490 million and due to its reliance on Medicare requires a disallowance by this house. The Rudd government wishes to replace this scheme with two new schemes, the Commonwealth Dental Health Program and the Medicare Teen Dental Plan, at a cost of $780 million. The funding for this was factored into the last federal budget on the assumption that the funding for the previous scheme would be stopped—and I note the question by Senator Siewert: why can’t we fund both? That is a reasonable question. It is a question I have posed to the government.

However, I note that the previous scheme was poorly accessed in most states, with my home state of South Australia receiving only 2.8 per cent of the funding. I have had an email from a ministerial adviser to the Minister for Health in South Australia. The minister’s office asserts in that email that, on the basis of the available figures, South Australian patients comprised 1,256 out of the 44,774 patients who accessed the chronic disease dental scheme from 1 November 2007 to 31 July 2008. That is about a 2.8 per cent share of the national total, compared to the 8.7 per cent which South Australia will receive under the Commonwealth Dental Health Program. The minister’s office also says that total benefits provided to SA patients under the old scheme amounted to $2.5 million from 1 November 2007 to 31 July 2008. This is a 2.4 per cent share of the total expenditure, compared with $24.7 million which SA will receive under the Commonwealth government’s proposed scheme. The office goes on to state that, in comparison with the former scheme, the new scheme will provide for 85,600 visits over three years, which will see dental waiting times reduce from around 19 months now to about 12 months. That is the position of the South Australian government. Anyone who knows about my relationship with the South Australian government could never accuse me of being a spruiker for that government, but I think it is a fair point that has been made by the minister’s office. I have taken that into consideration insofar as it impacts on the citizens of South Australia.

It seems to me the dilemma is that the government is not prepared to fund the chronic dental scheme and so what do you do with the available resources? That is my concern, although I think Senator Siewert’s question as to why we cannot fund both is one that must be answered by the government. I see benefit in the proposed new dental scheme that the government wants to implement, and that will be a good thing for South Australians. But I also note the concern that those with a chronic dental problem will no longer be able to access this scheme on the basis of the government’s position.

By the government’s own admission, thousands of people with chronic dental needs who are currently receiving assistance under the old scheme will miss out under the new scheme because they do not qualify for concession cards. That is obviously a real concern. Anyone who has had to wait longer than a day for an appointment with a dentist to treat something as minor as a toothache or a minor chip will appreciate how distressing dental pain can be. If we then consider those suffering chronic dental pain, and how chronic pain dominates all aspects of one’s life, it is not acceptable that these people be deserted to suffer. It is not acceptable for those currently receiving support or those on the cusp of the concession card threshold to be suddenly facing huge dental bills. It is a case where we should not be robbing Peter to pay for Paul’s teeth.

I can say that I have had some very useful discussions with the minister and the minister’s office, and I appreciate that. I have sought further information as to the extent to which like-for-like treatments could be funded in South Australia for chronic dental conditions in relation to the proposed new scheme that is currently in abeyance. I have also sought information on how many South Australians with chronic dental needs would lose out due to these changes and how many new treatments would be afforded for like-for-like treatments. I accept in good faith that the government will be providing me with those details in due course. However, I think there are some legitimate concerns raised by the opposition and by the Greens about this. I think more needs to be done to convince me that this is the way to go. So, on balance, I cannot support the government’s position on this, but I look forward to further discussions and perhaps a further commitment from the government in relation to the matters of concern that have been raised in the course of this debate.