Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

At the outset, we should note that the purpose of the Higher Education Support Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 is to give effect to two legislative changes that were introduced by the previous coalition government, which Senator Smith heavily criticised in her contribution in this place. The first change to which the bill gives effect is the Higher Education Loan Program debt reduction scheme for rural doctors and nurse practitioners who reside and practise in regional, rural or remote Australia. The second change is to fix an anomaly so that students who are undertaking honours programs also qualify for the assistance. The basic proposition is that, if those people who are studying medicine or nursing choose to work and live in a regional or remote community, the quid pro quo is that they're given relief on their university fees. That is entirely appropriate and, hopefully—and I share this ambition with Senator Smith—will go some way towards alleviating the crisis that is currently occurring, especially in remote and regional communities, in relation to health care.

Research from the Australian Healthcare & Hospitals Association provides some really startling facts about the health of people living in rural and remote communities as opposed to the health of those who have the benefit of living in larger major cities. I quote from an information statement which they released, which lists a number of the differences. Firstly:

People in rural and remote areas on average have shorter lives, higher levels of illness and more disease risk factors than those in major cities.

The next point is quite startling:

Mortality rates for males in very remote areas are 1.4 times higher than those living in major cities and 1.8 times higher for females.

Mortality rates are that much higher for our fellow Australians who are living in remote communities.

Age standardised suicide rates increase with remoteness and the total burden of disease rate in remote and very remote areas is 1.4 times higher than in major cities.

People living in rural and remote areas are more likely to have long-term health conditions including arthritis, asthma … diabetes, heart disease, stroke and mental health conditions.

A higher proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, with worse health outcomes than other Australians, live in rural and remote areas.

The need is there but the supply of health professionals is wanting, and that's one of the things which this bill seeks to address.

In the limited time available before the time for senators' two-minute statements, I want to make some reflections on the current state of the health system in my home state of Queensland. What is happening in Queensland, especially in regional Queensland, is an absolute disgrace. This is from an ABC article dated 15 January 2023:

Gladstone Hospital in Central Queensland—

this is a city of 60,000 people—

has been on maternity bypass for more than six months.

This is a city where, typically, 600 babies are born each year—it has a population of 60,000—but the Queensland public health system, under the Palaszczuk Labor government, is incapable of providing obstetric services.

Don't just believe me in relation to this. Let me quote from the President of the National Association of Specialist Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Dr Gino Pecoraro. He said:

Gladstone had the specialist staff, but their ill treatment by the health department led to them fleeing.

We had the obstetricians in Gladstone but they were treated so appallingly by the Queensland health department, under the Annastacia Palaszczuk Labor government, that they actually left the system. They couldn't bear working in the system. The article quoting Dr Pecoraro continues:

"This cannot be stressed enough," Dr Pecoraro said.

"Doctors—myself included—have been warning the health department of the imminent collapse of maternity services for two years.

"The root cause of this collapse was the closure of the private maternity unit in Gladstone. This led to the private specialists previously living and working in Gladstone moving out.

Dr Pecoraro said following the closure specialists were prevented from delivering private patients in the public hospital …

So that's the issue. It's an ideological issue that the Labor Party state government in Queensland won't permit private patients of obstetricians to be delivered in a public hospital.

Why? Why have this ideological blind spot in terms of the cooperation between the public health system and the private health system? When we look around the world—when we look at the health system of the United States—surely we all observe, or we should all observe, that one of the strengths of Australia is a strong public health system and a strong private health system. The two should be working together to provide the best health services to all people, including Queenslanders living and working in our remote and regional communities, who do so much for this country and produce so much in terms of revenue to pay for health services and education services, which, under the Queensland Labor government, they simply aren't getting. It's a travesty. There's a city of 60,000 people without an obstetrician to deliver babies. It's extraordinary, absolutely extraordinary, and I think the people of Queensland should carefully reflect on the situation of our health department and our health system in the lead-up to the next election.