Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

Perhaps the answers given by Senator Ronaldson would be better described as non-answers. As we know, he wants more questions but we are not getting the answers. Today we asked for some answers about the seniors supplement. We got a lack of answers and a lack of information about what is going to happen so I am afraid I am going to have to tell the veterans of this country what this minister is proposing to do in three very crucial areas of his portfolio. Today we asked him to tell the veterans, but he did not tell them so we will have to. There are three crucial areas where this government is seeking to take away benefits from the veterans of this country. The first, and perhaps the most disgraceful, is changing the way in which the CPI operates in the calculation of veterans' pensions. The Labor Party introduced a scheme where veterans got the best of three methods of calculating increases in benefits. That gave the best possible result to veterans. This government is proposing to take that away from September 2017.

I would like to refer to a document that records what the minister said about this very thing the government is proposing to do. I have a copy of The Northern Daily Leaderdated 12 June 2013. The minister was going around holding his forums with veterans groups. There is a lovely photograph of him in the paper, with Senator Williams and Minister Joyce. The minister pledged that he was going to give to the 57,000 diggers across the country who received the DFRB pension the same arrangement that applies now to veterans' pensions—namely, the best of the three results. What did he say about the CPI being the only method of calculation? He said it was outdated and unfair. So the scheme that Senator Ronaldson is going to apply from September 2017 is what he said just over 12 months ago was outdated and unfair. The report of Senator Ronaldson's comments reads:

"CPI has not been a measure of cost-of-living for at least 15 years,” he said.

“Aged pensioners don’t have their index assessed in this way so they are falling further and further behind.

“It’s basically unfair where they’re at and they deserve a fair go and we’re going to give it to them.”

That last sentence was right—he is going to give it to them! He is going to take away the fair method of indexation. He boasted before the election that he was going to give fair indexation to DFRB pensions, and he did—but there are only 57,000 of those pensions tied to CPI. Do you know how many veterans pensions receive CPI indexation? There are 280,000.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How many?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is worth repeating, Senator Bilyk—there are 280,000. On the one hand he has given the scheme Labor introduced to 57,000, and we support that, but he is taking it away from another 280,000 people. Can I tell this chamber, on my second to last day here, that we are not going to cop it. Labor will not vote for the taking way of this benefit. Nor will we vote for taking away the seniors supplement, and nor will we vote for removing the three months back pay for disability pensions. This minister said he wanted to avoid the mistakes of the past, but he is just starting to make them again. (Time expired)

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to take note of the answers given to questions asked by the opposition today of the government, and I note that all of the questions seem to be about the budget and all of the questions seem to be about some of the measures that we have had to take in this budget to deal with the situation that we inherited when we were elected to government on 7 September 2017—that is, 2013.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And hopefully again in 2017! Thank you very much, the senators from South Australia. I don't think any of us in this place like to face the fact that savings have to be made across portfolio areas. Sadly, those opposite need to realise that many of these measures that are constantly being complained about—somewhat unfairly and, to some degree, dishonestly on some occasions—are because of the budget position we inherited.

Since 1996 we have had budget after budget after budget that gave more to the Australian people—and in good times when you have budget surpluses, that is a fantastic thing to do. Every government should aim to get budget surpluses so that we can make living standards and opportunities for Australians better. But, unfortunately, when you are running huge deficits that are constantly increasing, you do not have that luxury. I would point out that those opposite can carp all they like about the savings we have had to impose because we are responsible fiscal managers but just remember: the reason we are doing it is not the actions from this side of the Housel; it is from your actions when you were sitting over here.

It is worth remembering that $667 billion worth of debt would have been attributed to every man, woman and child in Australia had we continued on the trajectory we were on. That is $1 billion a month to pay for the interest on the debt; and how far could $1 billion a month have gone towards delivering some of the programs those opposite are today complaining about us having to deliver? The fact of the matter is that we have the fastest-growing deficit in the OECD. We can sit here and carry on all we like about the fact that the debt-to-GDP ratio was not as bad as that of other countries, but with the fastest-growing deficit, in a minute we will have.

The other thing I think is worth noting is that, amongst the scaremongering and tactics that have been going on from those opposite, they have not been telling the public the whole truth. To go out there and to scare the horses, our pensioners, people with children who are going to school and those people who might not be in good health without telling them the truth is an extraordinarily irresponsible thing. As an example, 'The budget for health has been cut'—the budget for health has not been cut; the budget for health is not increasing at the same rate as they put into their forward estimates.

Let's have a look at forward estimates. The big problem here is that those opposite are sitting there and carping about the things we are not funding into the future. How extraordinarily hypocritical! I could sit here for the next 25 minutes and give you a list of the programs that they had not funded into forward estimates and, when we chose to accept the fact that they have had to take those programs out of the budget because we simply could not afford some of them into the future, they attack us because we have not put them back into the budget.

There has to be a little accountability on both sides of this House—not just accountability for the government for their budget but accountability for the actions that those opposite took while in government that we have inherited. I will just put it on the table that an awful lot of things happened prior to 7 September 2013 that are resulting in the actions that have had to be taken with the budget today.

To further that issue of hypocrisy is the fact that in some situations those opposite are voting against the very savings that they had put into their own budget. So in taking note of and responding to the questions that were asked today, I would suggest to the House that maybe it would be a little better if we were more productive and proactive about doing some of the good things and in making sure we get this country back onto a good economic trajectory, instead of carping about hypocritical things that those opposite have caused. (Time expired)

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Mental Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also take note of answers given by Senator Nash to my question to her today. I had to come back into the chamber today to ask a question about the impact of the $7 GP tax on patients who use warfarin, a medication that is required for many patients. While it is a very common drug in Australia, people have to have the appropriate blood tests on a very regular basis so they can be prescribed warfarin effectively and at the correct dosage. Again today, we did not get an answer to the question: 'Isn't it true that the $7 GP tax could add up to hundreds of dollars to getting this life-saving treatment?'

The minister said that it was a matter for practitioners, which is an intentionally misleading answer, and frankly the same answer as she gave to me last week. But the truth is that, if pathology and diagnostic providers bulk-bill, they not only lose the $5 out of the $7 GP tax but also lose their bulk-billing incentive, which currently runs at $6 for an urban setting and $10 for someone who is in a regional or remote area. There is no way that a practice can simply absorb that reduction in income. It is intentionally misleading for the minister to say, 'That's just a matter for the practitioners; they can just do whatever they want to do.'

The minister then resorted yet again to the 'budget emergency' story. She said that there were burgeoning costs in the health system. She referred to the total health budget many years ago being a certain amount and then compared that to the amount it is going to be in this year's budget. Yes, the population is growing; yes, health costs are growing; yes, people can get better services now; and, yes, it is more expensive to provide modern-day health services. But Associate Professor Brian Owler, the President of the AMA, predicted the minister would say this. In his opinion piece last week he said:

The health budget is not out of control. As a proportion of GDP, Australia’s healthcare spending has remained constant. In 2011 it was 8.93 per cent compared to the OECD average of 9.3 per cent. The proportion of this contributed by the federal government expenditure remains constant at around 41 per cent.

As a proportion of federal government expenditure, health expenditure has actually fallen—from 18.1 per cent in 2006-07 to 16.1 per cent in 2012-13.

It is an absolute fallacy—it is intentionally misleading—to say that Australia's health budget is out of control.

We have a fabulous health system in this country. We are not going to sit over here and watch while the government of the day unpicks the universality of Medicare, the fairness of Medicare and the ability of Medicare to provide quality health services to people wherever they live in Australia—because the people who will be disproportionately disadvantaged by this are people who live in rural and remote areas, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and, as I have said many times, the poor and the sick. Why would you tax the poor and the sick of the country to set up a future fund when we do not even know what that fund is going to do? The Department of Health did not have any notice or knowledge of this future fund until April this year—a month before the budget. This is not a planned, structured approach to delivering a health system.

Then I moved to the third part of my question. I gave the minister the opportunity to support her senior minister by answering this question: 'Does the government remain committed to the $7 GP tax?' Not once but twice she refused to answer that question. Minister Dutton said, 'We are not for negotiating,' when he was questioned about this—so Senator Nash did not support her senior minister. I want to know what is happening, what deals are being done and where we are going to end up with this tax. The health of Australians will suffer. (Time expired)

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to take note of answers given to questions asked by opposition senators today. As have many of my colleagues on this side, I point out that the reason we have had to take a number of measures—and I understand that many of those measures are not popular—is the situation the nation has been left in. I will not go through all the figures, because people have heard all that before. What I want to talk about is some of the mismanagement that has led to that situation.

Let us look at something that we hope will be dealt with here in the Senate in the next month—and that is the mining tax. The former government brought in a mining tax that increased sovereign risk and discouraged companies from investing in Australia, which has had a flow-on impact on jobs. In doing so, the former government obtained net revenue from the mining tax of $340 million. In the same period, however, the structural spending the previous government racked up against the mining tax was in excess of $16 billion. That is a huge differential. It is that kind of mismanagement that has led to a situation where, like any responsible household, we have had to take measures which may not be popular. They may not be the measures we wish to take but they are the measures needed to keep Australia's economy on track and important aspects of our community funded.

Health funding has been the subject of many questions today. In South Australia, we see the state Labor government trying to blame the federal government for cuts they want to make to health in this year's budget. In South Australia in 2013 14, hospital services funding was $983.3 million and public health funding was $23.1 million, for a total of just over $1 billion from the federal government. In this year's budget, 2014-15, it is $1,053 million for hospital services funding and $24.3 million for public health—a total of $1.07 billion. That is a substantial increase this year. Going through to the out-years of the forward estimates, in 2017-18 the figure is $2.188 billion. For the Labor Party, whether it be here in opposition or in government in South Australia, to be trying to blame cuts to health in South Australia on the federal government is therefore just completely wrong. The figures in the budget papers show that health funding to South Australia increases, compared to the last year of the Labor government, year on year for the next four years. For Labor to claim it is decreasing—and, more particularly, for the South Australian Treasurer to cut health services there and blame the federal government—is clearly misleading the people of Australia.

As to the claim that co-payments are going to cause people to not seek the health care they need, I remind members opposite that the PBS system is recognised as an affordable and effective system for Australia. But go right back to 1960, when Robert Menzies was the Prime Minister. The co-payment was 50c. When did it start leaping up to higher amounts? It was in 1985, under Prime Minister Hawke, that it went up to $5. In 1986 it went up to $10 and in 1990 to $15. Under the prime ministership of one of Labor's heroes, PBS co-payments went up to $5 and then up to $15—and yet that has not deterred people from seeking the help, the medications, they need. It has not deterred people from getting the health care they need. Bear in mind that $15 in 1990 is worth a lot more than $15 in today's money. So it was a substantial increase for it to go from $5 to $15 under then Prime Minister Hawke. But the point is that it made the system sustainable, and nor did it deter people from seeking the medications they needed.

The aim of this government is to make sure that we have a Medicare system and a health system that meets the priority needs of our community but that is sustainable into the future. We are doing this in the face of a huge debt and deficit that has been left to this country, not only to my generation but also to my children's generation, by the former government. We seek to take responsibility for that as a responsible government. (Time expired)

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of Senator Ronaldson's answer to Senator Farrell. I think the point made by Senator Farrell is pertinent—it was not an answer; it was prevarication or an avoidance or something similar. But it clearly was not an answer. Senator Farrell clearly and succinctly put the case of advocating one thing and doing another. It is very clear that this minister is really straddling a barbed wire fence. To advocate that for 15 years the CPI was inadequate and then to bring it back is really stretching credibility to say the least. Refusing to answer direct questions about it is probably par for the course. It seems to be a continual theme of question time that we do not get an answer but instead get half a dozen points of order trying to direct the minister towards an answer. But it is always the same old tune: we are the government but it is not our fault. It is a big boys' fault. Someone else did it.

This is an extremely serious and pertinent issue. I know that Senator Ronaldson has received the letter that I am about to make some selective quotes from. I know that Senator Ronaldson has been in correspondence with this person. It is mainly Vietnam veterans who have taken the issue up with the minister, and there has been correspondence to and fro.

A lot of my working life I have associated with or been working with veterans. I have a brother who is a Vietnam veteran.

Let's just delve into it a little bit and give them a bit of comfort to know that people in this chamber do understand the situation they found themselves in. They were conscripted in a lot of cases. The gentleman says:

The army introduced us to alcohol and tobacco as a panacea while we were serving. Cigarettes were part of the supplementary rations. At the end of long and arduous operations infantry soldiers were given totally uncontrolled amounts of alcohol in the company boozers. If R&C was available, we were advised to avail ourselves, until stupid, with the bar girls in Vung Tau. As a result of Liberal/National coalition government policy, many of us did not fulfil our full potential in life.

That is the nub of this issue. These are people who were conscripts in a lot of cases. We do not see that in Afghanistan. There is no alcohol in Afghanistan. We have good policies. We have progressed in the last 35 to 40 years. There is no doubt about that. But these people, now at the end of their working lives—if they managed to have decent working lives—lost their career opportunities. To repeat, this gentleman says:

As a result of Liberal/National coalition government policy, many of us did not fulfil our full potential in life.

Now, we see a cruel decision against people who have done their absolute best for this country, who have sacrificed a lot of their youth, and who have worked probably in occupations that were more menial than they may have been able to achieve had they not been conscripted and sent to the Vietnam war.

They have written to the minister and asked him to reconsider. They probably had a fair idea that he might take some notice of that given that he has personally held forums on this and advocated for a different position to what is currently afoot. The fact that here in question time he is avoiding answering this question very clearly puts him in a situation that is untenable.

I will finish with the words of the constituent:

And so dear minister we must give you a fail. You have failed miserably to advocate for your constituents. You have too easily accepted the political dogma of your party. You are indeed totally bereft of the expectations of Australia for the care and respect of those who have served to make our Australia the envy of the free world.

So there is no lack of capacity to articulate this argument directly to the minister, and there is no lack of capacity to oppose these changes in this chamber, as so clearly and succinctly put by Senator Farrell.

The minister should be very well aware that we will not drop an issue such as this. We will advocate for these people who have served Australia in a tremendously great capacity.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Farrell be agreed to.

Question agreed to.