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

A letter has been received from Senator Moore:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

The Abbott Government’s radical plan to scrap all Commonwealth funding for public hospitals.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yesterday we found out that, along with this proposed radical new plan for our public schools that will see them become ghettos if it sees the light of day, the Abbott government wants to scrap Commonwealth funding for public hospitals. This is what leaked documents tell us. What I can say today with absolute certainty in this place is that when it comes to health, and in particular public health, Liberal governments, whether they are state governments or whether they are Commonwealth governments, simply cannot be trusted with our health. They have an appalling record. We all remember when Mr Abbott stood up before the election and said there would be no cuts to health. What an absolute mistruth and broken promise that has been because we have seen agency after agency scrapped; we have seen good programs lose their funding, and it would seem there is no end in sight based on this latest leaked proposal to scrap Commonwealth funding to our public hospitals.

I do not know where the Abbott government think the states would get funding from to fund public hospitals—he must think that these funds are just going to fall from the sky—but let us have a look at what they have done to health in the very short time they have been the government of Australia. There is the GP tax and the rumours around that: we had version 1 and then version 2 and we now have version 3 by stealth. We have already seen in this country the Abbott government impose a tax on people when they go to the doctor. We have seen the closing of Medicare Locals. What a huge success story they were, but, no, they were put there by a Labor government so that is enough for the Abbott government to say they have to go. We have seen the largest increase to private health insurance premiums in a decade, and just with the stroke of a pen they were able to go out. We have seen that the price of our pharmaceuticals will go up. We have seen cuts to preventative health research; we have seen cuts to chronic disease prevention; we have seen cuts to rural outreach. And, on top of this, what we saw yesterday in that leaked document is that it is the Abbott government's intention to go even further and to scrap Commonwealth funding to public hospitals. I am sure you will hear them get up in here today and deny that. That is the pattern of the Abbott government: first you leak the proposal, then you deny it like crazy and then maybe you tweak it a little bit and then in it comes. That is their record on health.

Let us take a look at Western Australia. Fancy asking a state government that has had its credit rating reduced to pick up any funding for public health. What kind of a game is that? The people who will be worse off are Western Australians because the Western Australian government has shown itself to be absolutely incapable of running a public health system, in the same way that the Abbott government has shown itself to be incapable of running and funding proper health services in this country—good, preventative health services. The Western Australian government is well and truly up there in terms of simply not being anywhere near competent in running public health. The projected midyear deficit in Western Australia is $1.3 billion, but does the Abbott government care? No. It is going to try to foist the cost of running public hospitals in my home state onto a government that has no money at all because of its absolute mismanagement. And that deficit in Western Australia is projected to blow out to $2.7 billion.

And it is a government cannot run a hospital. We have seen debacle after debacle with the Fiona Stanley Hospital—a flagship hospital developed and paid for by the previous Labor government. First of all, what the Barnett Liberal government did was privatise that hospital to a company that runs prisons and detention centres. So we have our flagship hospital in Western Australia on a 20-year contract with Serco—a 20-year contract! Serco have never run a public hospital in this country before, but that does not stop the Liberals; no, they give it away.

We have seen debacle after debacle: 18 months over its due opening date; almost half a million dollars a day in debt in the cost overruns in that hospital; an IT system that was so inadequate the state had to take it back—goodness knows what that cost; and, more recently, in the last four to six weeks, the sterilisation issue—an absolutely integral part of a public hospital, keeping patients well and giving them good surgical outcomes. It has been debacle after debacle: instruments going up to theatre all bloodied; instruments going up to theatre with bits of bone on them. It was so bad, despite the Liberal state health minister saying, 'Nothing wrong here,' but finally they conceded. Serco have lost that contract. They have lost two contracts in the very short space of time they had that hospital—first the IT system and now the sterilisation.

This Abbott government want to hand the funding of public hospitals over to the Western Australia government—what a joke. Neither the federal Liberal government nor the state Liberal government can run hospitals. It does not stop there in Western Australia. In 2008, it was proposed that the Royal Perth Hospital would close and it would close because Labor had a flagship hospital, Fiona Stanley, which the Liberals have since dragged through the mud. But, no, the Barnett Liberal government made a great promise to the people of Western Australia that they would turn Royal Perth Hospital into a 400-bed emergency type hospital. Guess what? That is not happening anymore. It was completely scrapped last year—a broken promise there. And there were great plans to upgrade our rural hospitals. Guess what? They have been scrapped as well.

So in Western Australia we have seen public hospital after public hospital absolutely lose funding. The latest Barnett debacle was to give the public hospital in the eastern suburbs, a poor area, to the Catholics, to the St John of God Health Care system. Guess what happened to reproductive technology? It is gone. 'Oops' said Mr Barnett, 'We didn't realise that St John of God wouldn't do any reproductive health.' They will not do terminations; they will not do sterilisations—no, no, no. So Mr Barnett says, 'It's all right, we'll build a stand-alone facility in the grounds of this privatised hospital.' St Johns said to them: 'Oh, no, you won't. We're not having those services next to our hospital.' What a bungle by the Liberal state government, and this is exactly what this government is trying to do. It does not matter how much they stand up in here and say they have not cut the federal health budget; they absolutely have.

What a low blow yesterday: the leaked document which says they are trying to get out of Commonwealth funding of public hospitals. The health status of Western Australians is already in a parlous state because of the constant bungling and the cost overruns by the Barnett government. Goodness knows what will happen to Western Australians if this latest move comes into being. That is the record of the Abbott government—deny, deny, deny. Remember the GP tax? 'We're not going to do that.' Deny, deny, deny and suddenly there it is: a GP tax. That is exactly what will happen here. I am telling you, Australians will not stand for it. Our public hospitals and our public health systems used to be world leaders. Under this Abbott government, they are slowly and surely being dragged down to levels that are completely unacceptable in a country as wealthy as ours.

On preventative health, we have heard front-line service after front-line service lose money under this government. On drug and alcohol services, we hear so much about their ice program, but there needs to be a preventative focus. The Abbott government do not seem to understand that, as they rip front-line funding away from services like that. We have seen them deny this and they will continue to deny it, but the truth gets out. This is a disgraceful move, particularly from a government that said in the lead-up to the election, 'There'll be no cuts to health.' That is completely untrue. We have seen nothing but attack after attack after attack on good preventative services. This latest move to scrap funding to our public hospitals is disgraceful.

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

Well, Mr President, there you have it. There we have it yet again—the Labor Party, again, never letting facts get in the way of what they think is a good story, because their entire premise of the MPI is incorrect. If those in the Labor Party were opposite, they would be truthful with the Australian people. What they are referring to is something contained in a media report, which is pretty much where they take most of their information. If they were being honest with the Australian people, they would be saying the facts, that this is a draft green paper. It is an options paper only. It is a discussion paper. It is not government policy. So if the opposition were going to be honest with the Australian people, that is exactly what they would be saying today.

We are a democracy. What we do in this nation is we discuss issues. We raise ideas. On this side of the chamber, this government, the Liberal and the National parties, actually encourage discussion. We actually want debate. We actually want people to put ideas forward and have a national conversation about that. Not from the other side. Indeed from the other side, apparently, according to Senator Doug Cameron, we see zombies. On that side of the chamber, they are not allowed to have an individual thought. On this we encourage debate and discussion. On the other side, they shut it down. Indeed, Senator Cameron said: 'We don't want zombie politicians.' Indeed, in 2010, he described serving in the Labor government as: 'A bit like having a political lobotomy. You can't speak your mind. You can't think about some issue because they are all off the agenda.' I can tell you, Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi, on this side, in this government, we encourage debate and discussion. If those opposite were being honest with the Australian people, they would have said exactly what they were referring to and use some facts.

Interestingly, we have even seen the South Australian Labor Premier, Jay Weatherill, referring to this particular issue saying, 'It's only a discussion paper. We've been asking them'—that is, the government—'to canvass the broader range of options. There is a broad debate going on about Commonwealth state relations, which is a good thing.' Perhaps those on the other side should spend a little bit more time listening to some of their Labor Party colleagues in other states.

The scaremongering from the Labor Party knows no bounds. When we look at the facts—and again I come back to the facts—hospital funding is increasing. It is increasing by 25 per cent over the next four years. It is increasing by $3.8 billion. We might need to say it a few more times for others around the chamber who maybe were not listening today to the excellent responses from Senator Brandis: health funding for hospitals is increasing. That is a fact. I know the Labor Party does not like dealing in fact, but it is a fact.

The former Labor government claimed that they would increase hospital funding by over 10 per cent a year—when they were in government, that was their promise. That was going to take the costing from $15 billion to $40 billion within a decade. And where was it going to come from? This is magic money—money that was off in the never-never; money that Labor now talks about this coalition government cutting. It was never there; it was magic pudding money. It was Labor hocus-pocus of promised money that they knew they were never going to have to deliver. Magic money is a standard Labor tactic. They were going to pretend they would fund health and education by billions and billions of dollars of fake magic money, and then scream when the government is said to be cutting their fake, unfunded promises. It is about time the Labor Party started to be truthful with the Australian people.

I feel a bit sorry—or very sorry, actually—for the hard-working people in the health sector who are out there saving people's lives and working hard. I have to pay tribute to all our front line health workers across the country. They do a fantastic job. And they believed the cruel Labor hoax that there was some magic pot of money coming their way down the track. Of course, it was never there, because Labor have absolute form on this. The irony of Labor talking about future funding! They could not manage the economy when they were in government, let alone manage delivery of any future funding. They have absolutely no idea how to manage the economy. On this side, this coalition government realises we have to be economically responsible managers. We have to make sure that, going forward, this country is secure and the economy is strong and robust. But on the other side they have no idea. What did they leave us? A trajectory to debt of $667 billion. For them to come in here and talk about future funding without any reference to the facts of the case is absolutely gobsmacking. I will note that you are nodding in agreeance, Acting Deputy President Bernardi. Thank you. We were left $123 billion worth of deficits by the previous Labor government. What a mess this coalition government has had to fix up! We are going to do that because we realise that the future of the nation is at stake.

Because of the previous Labor government we are paying $1 billion a month in interest. We are paying this because of the failed economic management of the previous Labor government. That is a billion dollars a month that we cannot spend on all those things that people out in our electorates, out in our states, right across the country, are asking us to do. It is because of the mess Labor left us. I know those opposite do not like us referring to that, but it is a fact. Facts are something those on the other side refuse to believe.

When we look at the economic mess we need to look no further than to the failed former finance minister, Senator Penny Wong. As finance minister all she delivered was debt and deficit, with no effective plan to bring the nation's finances under control. This was under Labor, under Senator Wong as finance minister at the time. Senator Wong said in her first speech as finance minister, in 2010, that a return to surplus in 2012-13 was not negotiable, yet her promised surplus never turned up. It never turned up because she failed to rein in the spending, and she presided over the most rapid escalation of debt in Australian history.

For those on the other side to come in here today and talk about future funding—and indeed, as I said at the outset, the MPI is based on a false premise—is absolutely gobsmacking. It is about time that those opposite in the Labor Party started to talk facts to the Australian people; that they started to be truthful with the Australian people when it comes to issues that affect them so enormously. We only have to look at some of the decisions that were taken under the previous Labor government to realise why this government is the economically responsible manager of the nation's finances. We look at things like the pink batts program, where $2 billion was mismanaged. We had FuelWatch and Grocery Watch—nearly $30 million was spent setting them up.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh really? You are not going there! It is embarrassing! Pink batts?

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

I am going to take the interjection from the leader of the Greens, who is saying: 'Oh really? You are not going there!' Unfortunately for the leader of the Greens, they have very little in terms of economic foresight, as well. No wonder the leader of the Greens is happy to sit there and go, 'Oh really, are you going to mention that?' It actually matters. It matters to understand why we are in the situation we are in. It matters to have some foresight and to be able to take the country forward. Perhaps Senator Di Natale could stop interjecting and maybe put some ideas and plans for some forward economic foresight, because we have not seen any yet.

It is most interesting that it is this side, this coalition government, that is going to make the economically responsible decisions for the future of this nation. The people out there across Australia compare and contrast. That is why they elected us in 2013—to fix the economic mess that Labor left us. For Labor to come in here and talk about future funding, the irony is gobsmacking. It is this coalition government that is going to lead the nation forward in a sustainable way and an economic way for the strength of the nation.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call Senator Di Natale, I will point out that the chair neither agrees nor disagrees with any debating points being made. It exists only to ensure that the standing orders are upheld.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

During the dying days of the last government, after the soap opera that was the change of leadership and so on, I remember someone saying to me, 'Can things get any worse?' At the time I wondered whether they could. You only need to look at this government's record on health policy to know that the answer to that is an emphatic: yes, they have got much, much worse. The health policy that the government has introduced through the course of the past two years is a litany of missteps, mistakes and utter chaos. Things got particularly bad under the previous minister, who has shown himself to be as inept in Immigration as he was in Health.

We had the co-payment policy, which was floated—it seemed like it was a thought bubble at the time—with no consultation. That got buried very quickly. Then we had version 2 of the co-payment policy, and for a while it looked as though that was flavour of the month where the government was concerned. Then that was ditched. The argument was that we needed to make sure that we sent a price signal, which later became a value signal, which was really code for saying, 'We've got to make it harder for someone to see a doctor because we think that people aren't that crook,' to use the words of the chair of the Commission of Audit. Then we had version 3 of the co-payment policy. That hung around for a while and eventually that was ditched. In the end, the policy went to where so much of this government's political agenda has ended up, and that is in the graveyard of bad ideas.

The one idea that did see the light of day and is having an impact right now—in fact, it is biting pretty hard—is what this government did to the funding of hospitals. It is true that reports that have been floated in the green paper are simply suggestions—if we are to believe the government—about possible reforms by a future government. You do not need to look at the green paper, because the reality of what is happening within our hospital system right now is much more frightening than what has been described in that green paper. We have half the facts out there. It is true that the government has increased funding to the states to ensure that our hospitals can continue to function. But that is only half the truth. The problem in this place is that most of the information that flies around is half fact or is opinion dressed up as fact.

The reality is that demand for hospital services is increasing. It is increasing as a function of a couple of things—improved health technology and growing population—and the funding is not meeting that demand. What that means, and it is very straightforward, is that people are going to have to wait longer in emergency departments, they are going to have to wait longer to have surgery done, it is more stress on staff, mistakes will happen and patients who need urgent care are going to miss out.

If this trajectory continues—and this is not speculation, this is the reality, which is far scarier than we have seen in the green paper—the hospital system will simply collapse. They are not my words. They are the words of the former secretary of the health department, now the head of the health program at the Grattan Institute, Stephen Duckett. In his words it is completely unthinkable that this policy could continue because the result would be a total collapse of the hospital system. There will be a change at some point or our hospitals will indeed fall over.

The simple issue is that federal governments have an important responsibility to fund our hospital sector. They cannot vacate the space as this government has done, and they cannot vacate it for a few reasons. It is all very well to have an ideological position that says, 'State governments should look after hospitals; we'll take care of Medicare and aged care.' What that position ignores and fundamentally misunderstands is how the system works. The entry points into the system are through primary care, a federal government funded responsibility. The exit points are through aged care, which, again, relies on federal government funding. You cannot have a situation where you have these divided responsibilities that create all sorts of perverse incentives to shift costs from one jurisdiction to another. It results in a very inefficient system, and that is at the heart of the problem here. We have divided responsibilities.

It must be said that the previous government, despite having extremely ambitious targets when it came to what it would do to reform our hospitals, at least made some progress. For the first time we had federal governments with some skin in the game who had an incentive not to shift costs to state governments. Likewise, state governments had an incentive not to shift costs across to federal governments. That is one of the big cancers in the system at the moment. By the federal government meeting half the costs of growth funding, what we saw was both parties finally working together to try and solve some of the issues that exist within our public hospital system and within our health system more generally. This helped the system work better.

This government is taking us in the opposite direction to where we should be heading when it comes to ensuring we have a decent system. It is a system, and the different parts of it have to work together. We cannot carve out state responsibility for hospitals in one area, federal responsibility for primary care in another area, aged care in yet another area and expect the system to somehow work properly. It makes for a patient experience that is fragmented, that leads to care being sub-adequate and that is ultimately expensive for the taxpayer. This is an ideological pursuit for no good reason. We need to start taking a much more responsible and mature approach to this situation and recognise that if we do not work in partnership with state governments right around the country we are going to return to the bad old days where a government, in the lead-up to an election, waved the chequebook around, rolled out some pork and said, 'We'll fund a hospital here or a few beds over there,' and the system continued to flounder. That is the problem that we have got right now.

It must be said that it is not just about hospitals, though, where this government has failed on health. There are so many other areas. Let us look at the flexible funds, which are funds that are given to a whole range of programs that do important work out in the community. There has been a $600 million cut in funding for the Flexible Funds program. What does it deliver? It delivers services to people with substance abuse issues. The government is running around talking about the ice epidemic, about how critical it is that we do something to address the scourge of ice, and yet they are cutting $8 million from programs that fund substance abuse. Tell me how those two messages are consistent.

The government says: 'Domestic violence is a national priority. Good on Rosie Batty for being a champion for domestic violence! But do you know what we'll do just quietly? We'll cut funding for domestic violence programs, many of them delivered in the health space. We'll cut funding for mental health. We'll cut funding for dental health.' Despite the fact that we have a huge inequity in our health system, which means many people across the country cannot get access to decent dental care, we have huge cuts in dental health as well. This is extremely short-sighted. One of the most significant causes of presentations to both general practices and emergency departments is untreated dental disease. It has a huge impact on the rest of the body—and we are cutting funding for dental health!

We have seen a funding cut for the Preventive Health Agency—'Forget that prevention stuff! It's namby-pamby stuff! Why would we care about things like obesity, smoking and alcohol? Why would we care about those things? It's really up to individuals. It's all about personal responsibility.' Well, if you are a young child being brought up in a home where alcohol is a big part of the family environment, you are already at risk of running into problems yourself later in life.

The truth is that we can afford to have decent health care in this country. Don't believe the nonsense that our health system is unsustainable. It is one of the best health systems in the world. As a proportion of GDP, we spend less than the average health spend of other OECD countries when it comes to health—and we get really good value for money. We need to start having a conversation in this country about whether our governments are investing in things that our community want, need and deserve. When it comes to health care, the Australian community speaks with one voice: 'Yes, we believe that our taxes should support a decent health system and a decent hospital system and it's the federal government's responsibility to deliver that for us because we're who they are working for.' (Time expired)

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

I am very pleased to rise to speak on this matter of importance, particularly because it is a signature policy area for Labor. We believe in public health and we have committed to it in every form and with great vigour in every government we have ever formed—and we will need to become a government once again to help this country recover from the damage that is being inflicted right now by this shameless and shameful Abbott government which is determined to tear apart access to public health. In this environment of cuts and austerity that is currently being imposed upon the Australian people by a callous coalition regime, if this government cares at all about health and the Australian people it is time for a debate; it is time for them to listen to some of the experts and some of the evidence and some of the advice that is been proffered. But based on the Liberal Party's policies any conversation about public health care needs to start with a very good warning: the Liberals cannot be trusted with public health care—and neither can their coalition partners the Nationals. Yesterday Labor actually welcomed one comment from the health minister, Susan Ley, which was a long overdue admission that the Abbott government has ripped over $60 billion from public hospital funding. At least now we are part of the way to some disclosure of the truth that they run and hide from every day in this chamber. Every single day they run away from the facts.

At the 2013 election the Abbott government committed to maintaining Labor's funding guarantee for public hospitals. They guarantee that they would support it. They said: 'A coalition government will support the transition to the Commonwealth providing 50 per cent growth funding of the efficient price of hospital services.' That is what they said. And on the day before the election they backed it in with a promise of 'no cuts to health'. Well, we know that that promise was worth absolutely nothing—from a government that is determined to rip out the heart of a health system that has served the nation, and continues to serve the nation, very well. Yesterday Minister Ley also confirmed that she is planning an additional $1.3 billion in cuts to the Australian health system to replace the $5 hike in prescription charges which has stalled in the parliament. Like so much of the government's failed policy objectives, we have cuts, cuts and more cuts.

Labor is deeply concerned about the ongoing uncertainty created by this $1.3 billion in health cuts being planned by Minister Ley. That is in addition to cuts around the Flexible Fund. I acknowledge the comments by Senator Di Natale. He is 100 per cent right. The government is running around the country screaming that we have got an ice epidemic and we need to respond. I agree that we need to respond to drug and alcohol problems in our community—but we do not respond to them by cutting funding for rehabilitation services! That is hardly the right response—yet it is the response of this government. There are 16 flexible funds. It is like the government is playing them off against each other—'Let's tell them the money is going to go, and see who screams the loudest. We might give them a little bit just to keep them quiet.' Going around the country I have heard from health professionals who are almost being given hush money—a three-month extension to keep them quiet for a bit longer. Or it may be a six-month extension. Or if they have a really good friend they might get 12 months. The chaos and the cuts to funding are destroying an entire system.

The disclosure from Minister Ley that confirms this government is not content with a $60 billion cut last year and the $2 billion that they added to that, and another $1.3 billion, just reveals that there is no boundary to how much they will take out of the health system. Make no mistake, with these ongoing cuts the Abbott government is absolutely dismantling universal health care access as this country knows. Labor believes, I believe and Australians believe that we should be able to get the health care that we need—not the health care that Tony Abbott decides he can afford to give you. If you are wealthy, well good on you: 'You can top it up and have the health care that you really need.' But if you are not wealthy, if you are disadvantaged or even if you are working and you get a chronic illness: 'Too bad, so sad, you're just going to get cut out, you'll have to miss out, sorry.' That is not the Australia that was envisioned when we put in Medicare. This government has invented a budget crisis as a cover-up to impose an ideological agenda on an unsuspecting public. Australia will certainly be the poorer and the sicker for it.

Building and supporting a public healthcare network is in Labor's DNA. It is a very central part of being Labor. We stand proudly on our record. From Medibank to Medicare to the NDIS, Labor has delivered and expanded our public healthcare system to provide for all Australians—not just some, not just the wealthy, not just those lucky enough to be born into good health and a wealthy family. For Labor, universal public health care is an inalienable right.

There are people in this country who do not know what it was like before Medicare came on the scene. But we have heard evidence from leading health economists who have been around for a long time. Bankruptcy was what happened to people who were sick and went to a hospital and did not have any money. Their houses were sold out from under them. People chased them around the country to recover the money to repay the debt. That was the reality that faced Australians in the good old days, a reality to which this government, the good old boys, would take us back. Their networks are flush with cash from the sorts of systems that they set up, but they do not care about ordinary Australians, particularly vulnerable and sick ones.

We do not believe that public health care is a privilege to be whittled away by a deceptive government. We do not believe that it should be denied to people who are unable to afford it. Regardless of age, gender, wealth, ability or locality, access to a decent, universal public healthcare system is a non-negotiable principle for Labor. It is a principle we fought for long and hard, to establish, expand and deliver. We fought harder still to protect it from the many efforts of those who would have it dismantled and wind it back.

The hospital funding cuts that are the topic of discussion today are $60 billion cut out of the 2014-15 budget. They will swear black and blue to your face that there are no cuts to health. 'No, they're increasing.' Except that every state government knows that they are trying to manage a budget of reduced funding. Every state government knows how much pressure they are under because this mob, who were supposed to be delivering a fifty-fifty commitment to health in the states, balanced by the money from the federal government that states would get from the GST, said, 'We'll do a partnership; we'll shake hands with you'—until they got to government. Within moments of being here, within a breath of arriving here, they ripped up the national partnership agreements and walked away. And they have tried to back it in with this green paper. They are going to run away from that as well. 'No, it's only a draft,' they say. But in the green paper the possibility—which I would say their actions reveal to be a probability—is that they want to walk away from a joint responsibility with the states for the fundamental access to health care that Australians need.

They are ready to rip up any agreement. They are ready to walk away from any commitment. There is no deception that they will not prosecute if it is in their own self-interest. They are cutting like crazy, but they are not cutting in the right places. They are cutting from the vulnerable. They are cutting from the sick. They are cutting from those who live in lower socioeconomic areas. They are cutting from the bush and trying to keep quiet about it. Just a couple of weeks ago I was in Broken Hill with the Select Committee on Health. We were out there, and the head of the local health district, which runs the hospital, actually sent out an email to his senior executives and told them that, if they were contacted by the Senate Select Committee on Health, they were not to participate. That is a cover-up by any name. That is a gag. That is an attempt to hide the facts from the Australian people. These guys, if they are good at anything, are good at that. They are good at hiding the facts from the people—sadly, in complicity with some of the media who are not telling the truth.

I know this government does not want people to understand what they are really doing, but the Australian people are smarter than the government give them credit for. They have longer memories than the government give them credit for. They actually believed the government when they said that there would be no cuts to health and no cuts to education, no cuts to the ABC and no cuts to SBS. They believed you, but they will not believe you again because they will not allow their families and friends to have health care ripped out from underneath them by a shameful government. (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The greatest threat to the wonderful healthcare system we have in Australia at the moment is exemplified by the speech that anyone who might have been listening has just heard, from a Labor politician who lives in fantasy land and will say anything and do anything and use every emotive word, no matter how untrue, to try to fool the Australian public to believe the Labor line.

The facts—the actual numbers, the figures—prove the lie to everything that you have just heard from the previous speaker. First of all—and I know that my colleagues have raised this, as has been explained countless times at question time—the proposal in the green paper is one of many proposals for discussion, requested by the state premiers, including three or four who are Labor premiers. You have all heard, and I will not repeat again, how Mr Jay Weatherill, the Labor Premier of South Australia, has congratulated the government on this white paper. It does not necessarily mean that the option that talks about more Commonwealth spending and less state spending will happen. It does not necessarily mean that the option of more state spending and less Commonwealth spending will happen. These are just two alternatives that the state premiers asked to be put in the discussion paper. That is what happened

So, in spite of explicit evidence not just from Liberal and National Party ministers and leaders but from Labor Party premiers—in spite of all those assurances—the Labor Party continue this massive scare campaign in the hope that it will in some way get Mr Shorten looking better against the constant attacks from his colleagues on the ABC program The Killing Season. We cannot wait for this evening and another gripping episode of how dysfunctional the Labor Party are in opposition, which is how incompetent and dysfunctional they were when in government.

That is why this nation needs two or three terms, at least, of Liberal and National Party governments to get the country back on track. Labor, starting with a $60 billion credit—with $60 billion in the kitty for a rainy day—not only spent that $60 billion but ran up debts that would, if not addressed, approach $700 billion. That is a turnaround of some $760 billion. The previous speaker made a comment about the health system that 'Tony Abbott decides he can afford to give to you'. I remind Labor people, because they did not understand this when they were in government, that governments do not have any money at all. Governments do not own a single cent. All they do is use taxpayers' money. So it is not 'the government's money'; it the taxpayers of Australia's money, and they demand—and the Liberal and National parties will bring—proper and careful management of their taxation moneys.

I know these figures have been given before, but perhaps with enough repetition they might just sink through the minds of Labor Party speakers in this debate. Total budgeted health spending has this year increased from $67 billion to $69.7 billion. That is an increase of 3.4 per cent, more than the inflation rate, since last year. Public hospitals in 2005-06 were being supported to the extent of $8 billion. This year, public hospitals are getting $16 billion. In spite of what the previous speaker said, I am sorry, you cannot argue against the figures—and the figures are all there. PBS spending has gone up from $6 billion in 2005-06 to $10 billion in 2015-16, an increase of some 59 per cent. And the figures just continue. This government is concerned about health but wants to have a sustainable and financially viable health system—because, again, it is not the government's money; it is the taxpayers' money that has to be spent properly.

If you want to understand just how mischievously misinformed the Labor Party speakers are, we heard this comment that, back in the good old days before the Commonwealth took a greater funding share of public health expenditure, people had to sell their houses to go to hospital. Of course, the speakers should remember that in most states, and certainly in my state of Queensland, there was a free state hospital system—run by the Golden Casket, would you believe? It was always there, and so that sort of scaremongering misinformation that you get from Labor speakers clearly and typically exemplifies why Labor should never be trusted with money and should never be trusted with our health system. Our health system will continue to grow and continue to be even better, but it will be done in a financially responsible way. At the same time, we will look after taxpayers' money properly so that they are not paying more than $3 million each and every day in interest on loans borrowed during the Labor period. Good health means good coalition government. (Time expired)

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the matter of public importance today and about the important role the Commonwealth plays in funding public health services and, indeed, public hospitals across the country. The Commonwealth is the largest funder of health services across the country and provides just over 60 per cent of all government funding going into health, which currently exceeds $100 billion per annum between the state, territory and Commonwealth governments. I think it is absolutely appropriate, with the issues that continue to be leaked into the papers at the ends of sitting days, that we do respond to those issues as they emerge. The concerning one yesterday was about a withdrawal of funding from public schools or means-testing parents; today it is about the Commonwealth walking away from funding public hospitals.

I note other speakers have used the Premier of South Australia in their defence of the indefensible, saying that Mr Weatherill congratulated—I think that was the language that Senator Macdonald used—the government on the issues potentially being raised in the green paper. That is not an entirely correct representation of Premier Weatherill's comments. Indeed, Premier Weatherill, in expanding on his comments today, made the point that, when it comes to health funding, the Commonwealth, states and territories need to remain working together in a cooperative fashion. We are in a sense, to use Premier Weatherill's term, joined at the hip. You cannot have one funding partner in the health system potentially remove themselves from it when they have policy and funding responsibilities in other respects. The Commonwealth has responsibilities in primary health care, in GPs and in the MBS. It also has funding responsibilities in relation to aged care, disability and community care. We need all of the partners who work with the hospitals, which are the entry and exit points for a lot of the people using those services, to be supported financially by both the national and the state governments. We both need skin in the game. For one to remove itself from one element and believe it will not impact on the services is unbelievable. To say that the state and territory governments have 100 per cent funding responsibility for hospitals—what is the incentive to run efficient community care, GPs or disability and aged-care services when there is no incentive to make sure that services at the hospital are running efficiently?

Tony Abbott wants out of schools and hospitals, and it appears he wants out of preschools as well. This is off the back of saying that there would be no cuts to health. All we have seen in the last two budgets, which is all we can measure this current government on, is a walk away from funding commitments relating to health. If I use the ACT as an example, in the 2014-15 budget the ACT lost—and it updated in this year's budget—about $228 million in funding that we expected to get, from the Commonwealth, to run public-hospital services in the ACT.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No it didn't!

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Seselja interjects, but he does not understand hospital funding. He does not understand that estimates of projected growth are that we are getting less than what was estimated in the Commonwealth budget paper. This goes to the point that those opposite will say there have been no cuts. Reduced growth funding is a cut in health. It is a cut, no matter which way you dress it up.

If hospitals and expenses are growing at over five per cent and one of your major funding partners is funding at 1.7 per cent, that is a cut. That is a cut of three per cent that will be felt within the hospital system. This is how hospitals have been funded since the Commonwealth, state and territory governments resolved modern funding arrangements. There was an estimated growth cost. Find me one state or territory budget that has been handed down, in the last month, that funds public-hospital growth at 1.7 per cent. You will not find one, because they are growing much faster than that. The people who provide the services have to be realistic about how those services are funded. Perhaps the Commonwealth does not need to worry about that, but the states and territories do. There has been a cut to health and a cut to health funding in the ACT, and the ramifications will be felt for years to come. (Time expired)

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very happy to follow on from Senator Gallagher because she has repeated the falsehoods she made outside this place around health funding. The Department of Health has confirmed that Senator Gallagher was simply making it up.

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

I know it's hard to cope with, but she beat you!

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong may not want to hear this, but she was making it up. The current health minister in the ACT is also making it up, but he is making it up with a completely different set of figures. So let's start with the record. Today's The Canberra Times reads: 'Canberra the worse for urgent case wait times.' That is what has been happening under years of ACT Labor.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Seselja, you know the use of props is not appropriate.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is not a prop, this is a piece of paper. But I will read from it. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has figures showing that the ACT had the lowest proportion of urgent patients treated on time—just 50 per cent within 30 minutes. It also revealed that only 61 per cent of overall patients who presented in emergency departments, in the ACT, were seen within two hours—the second worst in the country. Those figures are simply false.

Let's go to them. Let's go to the last Rudd-Gillard budget when it went to ACT Health hospitals funding, and compare it to coalition budgets, because the numbers that Senator Gallagher put out there are false. The Department of Health confirmed they are false. The $240 million she claimed last year was false, so let's go to the difference. The last Rudd-Gillard budget in 2012-13 had $202 million in funding for ACT hospitals. In 2013-14 they promised $233 million. The first coalition budget, in comparison, in 2013-14, was $271 million. That is a significant funding boost on what would have been there, on what was budgeted under the Rudd-Gillard budget. In 2014-15 it was $271 million. In the second coalition budget, delivering in 2015-16, we saw $321 million going onto $343 million in 2016-17.

One of the reasons the Labor Party cannot be taken seriously on health is that spokesperson after spokesperson comes here and makes up figures. We have heard it from senators opposite, right across the board. They are claiming these massive cuts when there are not massive cuts. There are increases in health funding. That is true in the ACT. Simon Corbell, the ACT health minister, came up with a different number. He claimed $600 million in cuts. Senator Gallagher claimed $240 million in cuts. Both of them were wrong. In fact, there was an extra $200 million for ACT health funding under this government than what would have been delivered by the previous government, had it continued. Yet they claim a cut. That is what we see across the board.

I will go back to some of the national figures. What I think most interesting about this matter of public importance is that the Labor Party—who have had such a bad few weeks—are not arguing against actual coalition policy anymore, they have taken to arguing against phantom coalition policy. They will make up a policy that we do not have and argue against it. That comes through in wording like we had today about 'the Abbott government's plan to rip funding away from hospitals'. That is absolute rubbish.

I will go to some facts. The total 2015-16 budget investment in health and sport increases to $69.7 billion. That is an increase of $2.3 billion or 3.4 per cent from the 2014-15 estimate. This compares with the originally forecast 2015-16 amount of $68.5 billion

We have a whole-of-government spending: Medicare, over $22 billion; primary and mental health, $2.4 billion; medicines, $10.1 billion. Let's look at this comparison: in 2005-06, the Commonwealth was spending $38 billion on health; in 2015-16, we are spending $69 billion, or an 85 per cent increase. So the economic vandals in the Labor Party who created the problem, who created the massive budget deficits, are now claiming that an 85 per cent increase in that time somehow represents a cut. We see it from those arguing it nationally and here in the ACT we hear it often.

I would say to the journalists who sometimes want to believe what the ACT health minister says, be it the current health minister in Simon Corbell or the former ACT health minister, that they should look at the figures. They should look at what the Department of Health has said on the record in relation to those figures. When I put the claims to them that there was a $240 million cut, they said that they had absolutely no idea where the former health minister had pulled that figure from. We can only assume that the figure was simply made up by Katy Gallagher, as she was then the health minister of the ACT. We can only assume—in fact, we know—that Simon Corbell's claims in relation to $600 million are similarly made up. He just made up a different figure. He just plucked out a different figure to justify the mismanagement of the health system by ACT Labor here in the ACT. We read about it again today in The Canberra Times. Canberrans have been experiencing it for more than a decade as we have consistently languished right at the back of the pack. Regardless of the additional investment from the Commonwealth, regardless of additional spending from the ACT government, we have continued to see some of the worst outcomes in the country.

To conclude, I think it is just a little bit embarrassing that the Labor Party is no longer arguing against our budget. I thought we might hear today about their vehement opposition to petrol excise increases, but of course we are not hearing that. They no longer have a position on that as they once did. They are no longer arguing against our budget; they are no longer arguing against actual policy. What they have resorted to through this MPI is to argue against phantom policies. They will make up a policy and then argue against it. I think that is pathetic. That is why, absolutely, the premise of this matter of public importance should be rejected. (Time expired)

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for the discussion has expired.