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

Yesterday, Senator Watson asked me a question about funding for the Tasmanian health services infrastructure plan, and I undertook to provide a detailed answer for Senator Watson. The Rudd government announced its $50 million Tasmanian package on 25 September 2007, prior to the last federal election. Playing catch-up, the Liberal Party then announced a smaller package. The people of Tasmania had the opportunity to evaluate the $37.5 million on offer from the Liberal Party or the $50 million to be provided by Labor. Labor was always entirely up-front about this clear choice. Claims from the Liberal Party that the Labor government has cut health are scaremongering—pure and simple. The Liberals should know better than to keep playing politics with health.

The Liberals’ catch-up package contained $15 million less than Labor’s package overall and $1.5 million less than Labor for improving patient transport. Unlike Labor’s package, the Liberal package did not provide a commitment to the integrated care centre. This meant it contained nothing to take pressure off Tasmania’s public hospitals, as Labor’s plan will through a $15 million investment in GP superclinics. The Liberal Party had 12 years to deliver better health to Tasmania but instead chose to neglect the health system.

The Rudd government are getting on with the job of delivering our election commitments. These election commitments include $42.2 million in GP superclinics, a cancer care service in the north or north-west of Tasmania, a PET scanner for the Royal Hobart Hospital and an integrated care clinic with renal dialysis facilities in Launceston, and a further $9.9 million allocated to patient transport, particularly in the north and north-west of the state.

John Watson (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the further answer given by the Minister.

I thank the Minister for Human Services for his response, but his response has not clarified the position at all. According to the budget paper that I referred to yesterday—and I referred to it by name—there was a saving of $37.5 million. The minister, in response to my question of yesterday, although he said he would take it on notice, added some comments to the effect that that money was going to be spent elsewhere.

The issue is: you cannot use the same $37.5 million twice. You cannot use it as a transfer to other activities yet at the same time in your budget papers call it a saving of $37.5 million. You have to make up your mind: is it a saving, as referred to in the budget papers, or is it a transfer and you have used that saving in another area? The people are confused. Who is right? Are you right, Minister, or is the budget paper right?

Question agreed to.