Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

With regret I reflect on the gross embarrassment that has been visited upon this government when, on the last day that the 43rd parliament is sitting, we have to rush in through the back door and try to undo a gross level of incompetence that started with this Prime Minister, who was 'that Prime Minister Rudd', and is now the recycled Prime Minister Rudd, along with his then health minister Ms Roxon. What a shame Yes Minister or Yes, Prime Minister are not still alive, because there would be richness in the incompetence of this government should the writers of those series ever want to pick the pen up and have another go.

They, of course, reflected on the hospital with no patients. Here we have something far worse: the action of a government led by an incompetent minister with oversight from a grossly incompetent Prime Minister. They managed to establish a scenario in which the name Medicare, a prescribed symbol, should be used only in relation to Medicare itself. They found themselves in a circumstance where, by using the term Medicare Local, they made the body corporate of any association using the term guilty of an offence. If an association that used the term Medicare Local, as approved illegally by this government, was not a body corporate, then every member of the committee of management of that association was guilty of an offence.

What a scandalous situation—a Prime Minister who by that stage was totally out of control, a cabinet who could not in any way bring the man back to focus on good policy. The most endangered thing at that time was anyone who got between Mr Rudd and a camera or between Mr Rudd and a member of the media, who had been duped by the plethora and the football team of spin doctors. A health minister found herself in a scenario in which she was oversighting a circumstance where, under the Human Services (Medicare) Act 1973, section 41C, entities would be guilty of an offence if they used the name Medicare.

We have to look to the future because the present and the past, unfortunately, are littered with failure by a man whose own side had to remove him as Prime Minister simply because in their minds he was so incompetent that he could not govern the country. We then had transparency, we then had the light being let in for three years and—almost to the day—Ms Gillard, who replaced Mr Rudd herself, was then deposed only this week. I do not know if the young people in the gallery were here earlier in the week but, if you were, you were actually part of history when the second Prime Minister unelected in this circumstance was replaced by the first.

Should the coalition be privileged with government after the election—whenever that is held; it was to be 14 September and, if it comes forward from that, that is the end of the local government referendum, and if it is after that, who knows what will go on?—there is one thing that the Australian people have to know. The country will be led by a man who was an outstandingly successful health minister—Tony Abbott, a person who during his ministry significantly increased medical research funding in this country, a person who was able to extend the benefits of Medicare to allied health services including diabetes treatment, a person who singularly and spectacularly was able to significantly decrease the incidence of smoking by young people with the introduction of graphic health warnings. Contrast that with the efforts of this government recently with the new world-first legislation that has completely and utterly removed the names on packages to no effect. In fact, we do not know the reason and we are going to try to examine it. A large retailer in Perth recently told me there has been an increase of 25 per cent in the purchase of cigarettes through his retail operations since that came in.

I go back to the excellence of Mr Abbott as health minister and the introduction of the Gardasil vaccine against human papillomavirus for young girls and women in this country, a world first. We have heard from the other side again—we hear it quite often from the person who is now the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Ms Wong—about the fact that Mr Abbott seemed to rip $1 billion out of the health budget. Let us actually examine what happened in that case, because in their last days the Labor government might learn something. Mr Abbott sat down as the minister and consulted widely with the health industry, with his own leaders and with state leaders. And you would not believe what they did: they set a budget to achieve clear guidelines and clear objectives—and they achieved those objectives and those key performance indicators. Like a good steward of good government showing good use of Australian taxpayers' money, they came in at $1 billion under what was budgeted. Was that a waste of taxpayers' money? If people think so, let them make that decision on the day the election is held.

But I go on further, if I may, because I understand from my leader in this area, Senator Fierravanti-Wells, that in government the coalition will commission a formal review and it will look at those key elements upon which this government, the Labor government of Mr Rudd, has been a failure. I have already been part of that review process, when we brought the now shadow health minister, Mr Dutton, to the town of Narrogin in the Great Southern of WA some weeks ago. Nine or 10 shire representatives, aged-care providers, doctors, nurses and others came in and Mr Dutton sat down and did something this crowd would not know about: he actually listened. And I am very proud to say: in the aged-care area, Senator Fierravanti-Wells will be doing exactly the same thing in my home state of Western Australia in the near future.

In the time left available to me, I want to reflect on the terms of reference for the review that will be undertaken by the coalition. It is to evaluate the practical interaction with local hospital networks, including their boundaries. It is to examine tendering and contracting arrangements. It is to look at general practice and the capacity, as Mr Dutton so eloquently said in Narrogin recently, to actually recognise general practice as the cornerstone of primary care, which, of course, this government has removed. It is to ensure Commonwealth funding supports clinical services—clinical services rather than administration. I hope the young people up there in the gallery are feeling healthy and well and I hope they are attending to their studies, because what they need to know is that, under this government, under the leadership commenced by Mr Rudd, now having picked up that mantle again, this country today is paying $1,000 million a month interest on the debt that the Labor government has run up. That is $1 billion a month in interest—not in repayment of the debt; just in paying the interest.

Senator Eggleston is himself an eminent doctor. How many hospitals around Australia, Senator Eggleston, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, could be built in this country for the $1 billion that we are now spending a month on interest? How many nursing posts around Australia could be established? How many medical practices could be supported? What medical and related research could be undertaken? What dental activity can be undertaken for low-socioeconomic members of our community just with the money that would be saved if this government had not squandered your money? I say I hope you are all in good form because it will be you, and even your children, who will be paying back that debt over time.

This is the tragedy in rural and regional Western Australia now. Provision of medical services in many areas is now broken. It is a joint responsibility between federal and state governments. But as Senator Eggleston and I know in WA, local governments themselves are paying money that they really do not have, up to a quarter of a million dollars a year, just to provide doctors in those small communities. If there are no doctors, you cannot expect families to stay.

So therefore we have a circumstance, unfortunately, where local government is having to stump up its own money. Why in heaven's name local governments in rural Western Australia would be supporting a referendum to give the federal government some control over their affairs where they currently have none I cannot possibly conceive. All I can do, as Senator Fierravanti-Wells has said, is to hope this crowd do not do more damage before they are kicked out.