Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator Ludwig. Can the minister confirm that the budget spends around 400 times more money on pink batts and other insulation measures than on new funding for healthcare infrastructure in rural Australia?

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

I thank Senator Nash for giving me the opportunity to highlight what we have done in health as distinct from what the Liberals did in the last 10 years when they were in government. Our total health spending of $56.2 billion in 2009-10 represents, if Senator Nash wants to make a comparison, a 4.7 per cent increase on the previous year. It is $4.6 billion over four years in spending—plus, of course, for COAG on top of this, $3.4 billion over four years in savings. Of course, 50 per cent of that is the increase in hospital funding. What we are providing is $64 billion over five years in health and hospital funding—that is $20 billion more. There is $750 million for emergency departments, $500 million for subacute care, $1.1 billion for the health workforce and eight—

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The minister was asked a very specific question which he is refusing to answer.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: I will happily accept it if you say that was not a point of order, but I do not know how much more relevant Senator Ludwig could be to the question. He was specifically addressing the issues in the question, and I ask you to rule the point of order out of order.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ludwig, you have 51 seconds remaining to answer the question.

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

Thank you. I am sure Senator Nash in her health question does not want me to talk about pink batts. What I can say, though, in relation to rural health is that the government will deliver $134.4 million to better target existing incentives and provide additional non-financial support to rural doctors. I am sure that Senator Nash would be pleased that that would assist in rural health. I am sure Senator Nash would prefer that money spent in this way rather than not at all—in other words, deducted from the $25 billion that those opposite have to find in savings, because, if that is the case, you might then have to look at what the savings will be and where they are going to come from. Is it to suggest that they are going to come from health? What this government will do to ensure that— (Time expired)

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister undertake to gain some understanding of health issues in rural Australia—because he obviously has none? Does the minister recall that the Prime Minister said the buck stopped with him when it came to health and that he would take over all of Australia’s 750 public hospitals by mid-2009 if the states had not fixed them?

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

It is always a challenge when you preprepare your question. The reforms introduce incentives based on the principle of ‘the more remote you go, the greater the reward’. That is what this government will deliver. Under the initiative, 500 communities around Australia will become newly eligible for rural incentive payments. This government is concentrating on rural Australia and is providing assistance under the health budget for that. Additional reforms ensure that more than 3,600 overseas trained doctors with restrictions on where they can practise will be able to discharge their obligations sooner if they work in remote communities. We are providing doctors for remote communities, unlike what the previous government did. Under the HECS reimbursement scheme, the rate of reimbursement of HECS payments will be adjusted to give more credit for the remoteness of the location. We are ensuring that we focus our health budget to support those in the rural community. And, of course, the National Rural and Remote Health Infrastructure Program, round 1, will start as well. (Time expired)

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Does the minister concede that, with a $58 billion Labor deficit, there is now no chance of the Prime Minister keeping his promise to ‘fix our hospitals’? Isn’t this further proof that Labor has lost control of the nation’s finances?

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

The short answer is no, no and no, because we are doing a lot more than the previous government did. This budget provides, as I started to talk about last time, for the National Rural and Remote Health Infrastructure Program. The infrastructure program will improve access to health services by funding projects in rural and remote communities. Senator Nash has failed to appreciate that. Perhaps she has not read the outlines of the programs in the rural and remote communities. We are acting to support rural and remote Australia in the health budget. We are providing funding in addition to the National Rural and Remote Health Infrastructure Program. We are providing New South Wales with $4.2 million, Queensland with over $2 million and WA with over $2 million. These are all programs designed to assist. We can add in Tasmania as well. (Time expired)