Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Hansard source

Australia's Bonded Medical Places Scheme is a sensible system because it benefits the Australian people in rural, regional and remote areas that often, as a result of their distances from capital cities and major services, struggle to attract doctors. It also benefits the new doctors themselves by allowing them to attract government funding support for their studies by promising to work for a period for the people in those needy communities. On the face of it, it is a really sensible arrangement that has various beneficiaries, but I do think it can be improved.

Unfortunately, the lure of the bigger cities and the services they provide—the shopping, entertainment, restaurants and convenient access to professional services, as well as being near to family and friends—often outweigh the apparent attractiveness of the smaller country towns and communities. I think graduate doctors who are supported by the Bonded Medical Places Scheme should be more open to creating a life in rural, remote and regional areas and enjoy the unique offerings of country living and the people that call these places home, who deserve just as much access to professional medical and health services as those in the cities.

However, it is also important to recognise the professional aspirations of these doctors, who have often spent many years in study and professional development to become, for example, a GP. The pathway to becoming a doctor that is able to provide GP services and more in a remote community is not an easy one. The whole doctor training pathway sphere is demanding. It is very time-consuming in terms of the years that it takes from when a first-year medical student finishes their medical training, spends time in a training hospital and then completes his or her area of speciality. It's a significant commitment of at least a decade or more to become a fresh GP who can stand alone in a small community as their local doctor.

The bonded scheme has, since 2016, applied to about 28.5 per cent of first-year medical students in Commonwealth-supported places. It's a significant proportion of all medical students in Australia, and it should, on the face of it, result in good outcomes for country areas. Currently, in exchange for the support the students receive to achieve their medical qualifications, they are required to then work in an eligible non-metropolitan location in Australia for a total of 12 months, with that time to be completed within five years of attaining that fellowship. The Commonwealth provides 850 of these bonded medical places each year. It offers a subsidy of $22,000 per year of HECS or HELP support that does not need to be repaid if the terms of the scheme under which the bonded place was offered are met. The scheme should provide a win-win for the new doctors and also for the needy communities which otherwise would struggle to receive access to health services that are taken for granted in the cities.

However, a problem with this scheme is it's been apparently unable to come to a satisfactory time period for how long the medical graduates should spend in the remote locations and over what time frame that service should be fulfilled. In the past, there has been a requirement that graduates spend a period equal to the period of the medical studies, either four or six years, in these needy communities, but that wasn't successful. It's been turned back to now require graduates to fulfil a 12-month commitment in a needy community, with that service to be completed within five years of graduation. The shortcoming of this arrangement is that it could realistically mean that the new doctor could come and go from the community or communities, spending short times here and there and subsequently fulfilling the requirements of the bonded medical scheme but proving to be of no long-term benefit to the community, the local residents and their health needs.

The value of the Commonwealth support for the medical qualifications is of some $88,000 to $132,000, depending on whether it is a four-year postgraduate medical degree or six-year undergraduate degree. It's unacceptable that, after receiving so much financial support from the Australian taxpayer for a qualification that is well regarded and will lead to significant earnings in the private sector over the length of their career, the graduate spends such a relatively short period of time in a haphazard way repaying the Commonwealth and the taxpayer for their financial support.

This bill makes a further change by initiating a compromised time period, increasing the required payback service to three years to be completed within 18 years from when the formal medical studies are completed. This change would also fail in providing continuity of support for the needy communities. It fails to encourage the development of relationships between the members of the community and their doctor. We all know how important it is to have longevity of relationship with your doctor and to develop trust over time. The doctor-patient relationship is one that is intimate, very personal and vital as the patient negotiates the many ups and downs and challenges of their health and family relationships over time. It is absolutely more desirable to have a doctor in a community who has taken time to become part of the community, to develop relationships and to build trust. In some cases, they meet a local, fall in love, buy a house, get married and maybe start a family. To require just three years of payback service completed over 18 years is rather counterproductive.

If the three years are locked in as acceptable for the payback of financial support, I would prefer to see that time completed in one three-year stint, not a broken-up mishmash of some days here and a few weeks there. I personally would like to see the graduate spend a full five years in the community once again, but that may be difficult to introduce again. The reason I suggest these stricter ideas is that these medical graduates have been given a massive opportunity courtesy of the taxpayer. It's a support mechanism that is very generous and provides valuable support towards qualifications that can reap considerable career and financial benefits into the future. It doesn't seem unreasonable that there should be a fair contribution made to the needy rural, remote and regional communities in recognition of the support given.

If police are required to be posted in remote areas for at least two years after they graduate and teachers also have a similar program, with those who spend at least four years teaching in a very remote location over a six-year period also eligible to have their Higher Education Loan Program debt remitted, these should be taken into consideration.

As I have travelled around the country, I have spoken to many councils, mayors, communities and people living in those rural and regional areas who are crying out for doctor services. A lot of these communities are dying because they don't have the services available to them and they can't have access to health care, especially having doctors in their communities, or are spending an enormous amount of money with fly-in, fly-out doctors. Yes, something needs to be done about it—drastically. As I have said here, the taxpayer is going to be paying an enormous amount of money of between $88,000 and $132,000 in HECS fees for these medical students to get their practice. Surely it is reasonable to expect them to sign this contract in return, to give something back to Australian taxpayers by giving of their services.

It is a shame that the five-year scheme didn't work and a lot of people didn't sign up to it. But it is about working together to keep these communities alive, because when the older generations who live in these rural and remote areas can't get the health services they need they move out. They move to the cities, where they can get their health services provided to them. You have got less people living there. Less services will shut down because of less people living in the areas. It is going to have a flow-on effect. I do believe that extending it to a three-year period, from one year is more favourable. One Nation will be supporting the bill.