Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, congratulations on your elevation. My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Nash. Is the minister aware of the recent University of Sydney study which found that a young family consisting of two parents and two young children will pay an additional $184, on average, to access medical care as a result of the government's $7 GP tax and increased prescription fees? Is this correct?

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am aware of the Sydney university research. I am also very well aware that the previous Labor government left us a budget mess, which we are addressing. There have been a range of views expressed relating to the budget since that time. But what is very important for the Senate to note is the very fact that we are having to take tough decisions is because of the previous government's economic mismanagement and the budget mess that they left us. We had an MBS 10 years ago that was costing this nation $8 billion. It is now costing around $19 billion and is projected to cost around $34 billion over the next decade. This government has had to make some tough decisions. There has been a range of commentary about that.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order, which is particularly on direct relevance. The minister has been asked specifically about whether she thinks that the figures quoted in the question are correct. It is not whether she is aware of the University of Sydney process. It is about the specific figures about the cost of two parents and two children and the impact of the GP tax. I would ask you to draw the attention of the minister to the question.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has got nearly a minute left answer the question. The minister is being relevant.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicated that I am aware of the view. I am aware of a range of views when it comes to the budget measures that this government has put in place. For over 50 years, successive governments have recognised the need for a co-payment when it comes to the PBS. We have had something like an 80 per cent blow-out over the last decade in the PBS. The question relates the PBS. The reason we have made—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I again rise on a point of order on direct relevance. The question is specifically about the figures in the question and about whether they are correct. That is the question.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question was broader than just the indication of figures. Senator Nash is being relevant.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was indicating to the chamber, over successive governments for nearly 50 years there has been an acknowledgement that there needed to be a co-payment when it comes to the PBS, to ensure that it is sustainable. This government will ensure that we have a sustainable health system into the future. The budget is going to relate to ensuring that happens.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister also understand and accept that this study found that the elderly and those with chronic conditions will be the hardest hit by the government's $7 GP tax and that it could deter those who are most vulnerable in our community from seeking treatment, due to higher costs? Is this study correct?

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am aware of the study, as I have indicated. I am aware of a range of views about what the impact is going to be. However, the previous Labor government left us with a trajectory—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on a point of order: the fact that the word 'aware' is in part of a question does not mean that the minister can simply say, 'I am aware of everything,' and then not answer the question. The question is very specifically about a study which shows that the government's GP tax deters the vulnerable from seeking medical care. That is the question that the minister should respond to and that is the question that the minister should be directly relevant to.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. The minister has only been going for 12 seconds in this answer.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would say that, as with most studies relating to these things, this needs to be taken in context. This government has said that the requirement for a modest contribution when it comes to a co-pay is a necessity to ensure that we have a sustainable health system into the future. Unlike those opposite with a history of waste and mismanagement, which has led to the fact that we have a tough budget, we—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I again rise on a point of order on relevance. The specific question refers to the accuracy of the report. We have not got there yet.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. Senator Nash might not be answering the question specifically, but she is being relevant to the topic and relevant to the question.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicated that the research needed to be taken in context. This government is going to take the tough decisions to ensure that we have a sustainable health system into the future.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Why is the government continuing to deny that their $7 GP tax will hurt families, the elderly and those with chronic health conditions, the people who need health care, not more health costs?

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Isn't it interesting that the shadow Assistant Treasurer actually supports a co-pay? Let me just share this with the chamber:

But there's a better way of operating a health system, and the change should hardly hurt at all. As economists have shown, the ideal model involves a small co-payment - not enough to put a dent in your weekly budget, but enough to make you think twice before you call the doc. And the idea is hardly radical.

That is from your shadow Assistant Treasurer.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order again going to relevance. We only have a minute for this particular answer. It is halfway through. We have not got close to the question, which is about the impact on the elderly and those with chronic health conditions. The minister has gone nowhere near it.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. Senator Nash is being generally relevant to the portfolio and the question. Senator Nash, you have the call.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The best way those opposite could assist the elderly and indeed all people across Australia is to support this government getting rid of the carbon tax, which is putting such a huge impost on people. Those opposite claim that they are worried about the cost to people. Get rid of the carbon tax. That will assist them all. (Time expired)

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Abetz. Will the minister advise how the new Senate provides the opportunity for the government to deliver the agenda on which it was elected to build a strong, prosperous economy for a safe, secure Australia?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 7 September last year, the Australian people elected the government with an unmistakably clear mandate—a mandate to scrap the carbon and mining taxes, to stop the boats, to build the roads of the 21st century and to fix Labor's budget mess. Since coming to office, the government has committed itself to methodically and systematically delivering on those promises. Already we have introduced into the parliament legislation to repeal the carbon and mining taxes, to re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission and to strengthen protection for honest trade union members—all policies which carry the mandate of the Australian people.

However, it is disappointing that over these last nine months, the Labor-Greens alliance has been hell-bent on obstructing the passage of the government's legislation. Indeed, so resentful is Labor of the decision of the Australian people that last week it even boycotted the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, with the sole purpose of frustrating the passage of the carbon tax repeal legislation. The Labor-Greens alliance seems to be so desperate to keep the world's biggest carbon tax that they have tried to rort the proceedings of a Senate committee in order to prevent the new Senate from having its say on this important legislation. It now falls to this new Senate to deliver to the Australian people those policies for which the Australian people voted last September, some nine months ago. I therefore congratulate all new senators and also invite all new senators to reflect on the wishes of the people of Australia in electing them to this place and to respect the agenda on which the Australian people elected this government.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister explain to the Senate how the agenda on which the government was elected will deliver better outcomes in health and education for Australian families?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the very heart of this government is a steadfast commitment to the forgotten families of Australia. That is why we are making a multibillion-dollar investment in our hospitals and schools. Australian families should be assured that the government has guaranteed total hospital funding to the states of almost $70,000 million over the coming four years. I am also pleased to inform Senator McKenzie, who I note has a particular interest in education, that the government is investing $64.5 billion in government and non-government schools across our nation. The government looks forward with the Senate in being able to deliver. Of course, need I remind the Senate that, but for the deficit and debt legacy, there would be an extra $1,000 million per month available for these issues if we did not have to pay the interest bill on the borrowings thus far.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Will the minister further advise the Senate how the agenda on which the government was elected will deliver better outcomes for Australian workers and businesses?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The most important thing that the Senate can do straightaway to improve living standards by reducing the cost of living and supporting Australian jobs is to repeal the world's biggest carbon tax. The world's biggest carbon tax was already high enough, but last week, because of the Labor-Greens majority that existed in this place, it got even higher. The former Senate refused to respect the outcome of the election last year. On the subject of election mandates, we must not forget that in 2010 the Labor Party went to the election promising there would be no carbon tax. In 2013 they went to the election pretending that 'Kevin Rudd and Labor have removed the carbon tax,' yet now, just as in 2010, Labor comes into this parliament and seeks to repudiate its own election commitments.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I cannot confirm those figures, because, as I have indicated to the chamber on several occasions, it is a matter for the clinicians whether or not they choose to charge the co-payment.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left!

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those opposite might not like that answer, but it is indeed a fact and allows me to directly answer the question. It is a matter for the clinicians whether or not they choose to charge the co-payment. As somebody with a family history of breast cancer, I am the person most likely to be aware of these issues and to not trivialise it and to be well aware of what is necessary. So it is entirely a matter for the clinicians whether or not they charge the GP co-payment.

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister confirm that, if a woman tests positive for breast cancer, she will incur further significant out-of-pocket costs associated with visits to her GP and for diagnostic imaging?

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There have been a range of changes in the budget, as those opposite understand very well. They also are aware that it is a matter for the clinicians, as I have said and will continue to repeat, as to whether or not they charge the co-payment in those co-payment arrangements. This government has had to make some tough decisions to ensure that we have some sustainability for the health system into the future—something that the previous Labor government neglected to do.

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

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Won't the government's GP tax act as a barrier to receiving life-saving treatment for some women who simply cannot afford to pay?

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have been very clear about the changes in the budget as they relate to health, and the reasons why. The reason why we have had to make some tough decisions is the budget mess that the previous Labor government gave us. Those opposite know very well that it is a matter for clinicians to determine whether or not they will charge the co-payment, and they also know and are well aware of the concessional arrangements that apply to many of the patients.