Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I will take the opportunity to close the debate on this matter. This afternoon we have heard contributions from a range of senators in this place. One of the issues I want to address is that raised by the theme that went through all of the debates—that there is a need to address the dental issues in the Australian population. Those needs have not been addressed by the Liberals in the last 11 years. They did not take the matter seriously. In fact, in 1996, they withdrew substantial moneys from the system. We now have a view, expressed at least between the minors and the Greens, that the issue does need to be addressed.

Prior to the election of the Rudd government we took a responsible position by making it perfectly clear that we would abolish the former Howard government’s poorly targeted and failing chronic disease dental scheme. It was not working. It was not providing the benefits that people should have received. What it was doing was targeting those who would otherwise not need the service. For those who did need the service, such as pensioners and people on concession cards, it was not adequately, and in some cases not at all, addressing their dental needs. We had a clear choice that we took to the election, which was either a scheme that the Labor minister for health had put forward or a scheme that the former government had maintained. And the choice was made. The public chose in favour of Labor’s better targeted dental programs. The choice was necessary to maintain our budget surplus, and it is clear that that is still facing this Senate.

In a perfect world we might all be able to give everyone perfect outcomes. This is not a perfect world. There are choices that need to be made and there are tough decisions in tough economic times that need to be made. The Rudd government has put forward a perfectly proper process. Prior to the election it took an economically responsible path to maintain both a strong budget surplus and make tough choices. It did not take the easy way out of promising everybody an outcome. You cannot do that because all you are then doing is contributing to blowing out a multibillion dollar hole in the budget. The Charter of Budget Honesty provided a system where we would be costing our election promises and, having done so, it then provided the way forward where we could say that these included savings from the Liberal’s failed scheme in order to pay for Labor’s better policies. That is the process we took forward. Our commitment, compared to the previous government’s record of ripping $100 million a year from public dental services and leaving 650,000 people languishing on public dental waiting lists, was a clear vote at the last election for Labor’s policies.

We are now in the process of ensuring that we can proceed with ours while shutting down theirs. So, in response to Senator Xenophon’s arguments about some of the process issues around our scheme, we are happy to engage with senators in respect of the detail of how our program will be rolled out. What we are doing today is shutting down the existing scheme. It is not economically sensible to try to maintain both schemes. It was not what we tried to do before the election. We made that clear. The public made a choice about that. We then ensured that at the first opportunity we would roll out our new scheme and, of course, the savings from the existing scheme to be closed down would be used to fund election commitments. Why? It was to maintain a proper surplus of $22 billion to ensure that we could be responsible economic managers and also address the dire needs of those people who need dental assistance. To do that through our programs, which are targeted and designed to assist those people who need assistance, is the Labor way. It is the Rudd government’s way to ensure that we have the proper outcome. It is not about waving a magic wand, unfortunately, and hoping that everybody can benefit with the two schemes still running. That is not the position we are in. We have before us today the opportunity to shut one system down and give the Rudd government the opportunity to roll out its scheme to address dental issues that exist in the community and to start to target it to those people who are in need. That is the position we are now in.

In terms of the arguments that have occurred in this chamber, the main one from the opposition was held during the election campaign. Senator Conroy earlier this afternoon went through the reasons why their program was in dire need of closing and still needs to be closed down. It had failed abysmally. It had also been wrongly targeted and it allowed people to gain access to a system that they did not need because they could afford it themselves. It is a program that needs to be closed down and it needs the Senate to do so. It can only be done through this system that we have before us. When you look at the Liberal’s chronic disease dental scheme, you see that it was highly skewed, with many states receiving far less than a fair population share. One in five concession card holders lived in Queensland—18.9 per cent—but it only received 4.4 per cent of benefits under the chronic disease scheme. That is just one example of the scheme that the Senate will maintain if it does not support Labor’s position. To continue that scheme would be unfair and unjust for those people. The money could be better spent being targeted by Labor’s proposal.

This government does not have a magic wand to wave around and say, ‘We can maintain all of the schemes; we can maintain all of the programs of the Liberal government.’ To do that would not recognise that in truth there was a change at the election. There was a change for the better. The population voted for the Rudd government’s plans not only in dental care but in health and a whole range of other programs. The opposition are stalling in respect of this matter. They have to accept that we do have a mandate in this issue and we should be allowed to get on with managing these schemes. The opposition can take the opportunity to be critical of our scheme but they should support our mandate to allow us to govern and to provide the outcomes that we said we would, to provide the election commitments that we said we would and to provide the savings to maintain the strong surplus that we said we would. I was not going to take up much time in respect of this matter. It is coming up to the time for another debate to occur. On those words, I urge the Senate to close down the existing Liberal scheme.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Conroy’s) be agreed to.