Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Before I address the specifics of the Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2006, I would like to point out that this bill is subject to the guillotine motion moved by the Leader of the House, Mr Abbott, earlier this morning. In fact, it is my understanding we need to conclude this bill by 12 noon. The Leader of the House said that the opposition had been offered longer sitting hours, but on the condition of limiting their speeches. I need to place on the record a couple of things. Firstly, the government, when in opposition, never, ever agreed to limit their speeches. They never limited their speeches, so why should we as an opposition agree to limit ours? There have been occasions when I have agreed to the limitation of some speakers and debate, but I am always very reluctant to do it for the very reason that the Manager of Opposition Business stated—that is, all members of this House have a responsibility to scrutinise legislation and keep this government accountable. So why shouldn’t everyone exercise their proper right, as a member of this House, to make a contribution on this bill?

Secondly, one of the most frequent refrains in question time from the Leader of the House is that the Howard government is the best friend Medicare ever had, yet we have already run out of government speakers, who are shy about Medicare and unable to make any contribution to this bill and its impact on their own electorates. I find it ironic. Of course, I would suggest that Saddam Hussein is the best friend the Howard government ever had through the ‘wheat for weapons’ scandal, but that is another issue. The honourable member for Hunter has moved a second reading amendment, which reads:

“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1)

condemns the Government and Minister for Health for squandering the opportunity to fundamentally reform our health system;

(2)

condemns the Government for failing to invest in rebuilding our health system, including Medicare, for the future, focused on prevention, early intervention and an ageing population; and

(3)

condemns the Government for its failings in relation to our health system, as evidenced by delivering a Budget containing hidden cuts and the related decision to sell off of Australia’s biggest not for profit health insurer, Medibank Private”.

I want to make it clear that I am totally in favour of the amendment moved by the member for Hunter.

It is clear that the people of Australia value having an affordable and accessible health system that they have been used to for many years in this country. It is my view that the biggest black hole is in the hospital system, where the states are not receiving assistance from the federal government to make our hospital system even better. Locally, over the last couple of years there has been a great deal of community concern that the Mount Druitt Hospital would close or, alternatively, would become a nursing home. This was never going to be the case. Both Richard Amery, the state member for Mount Druitt, and I served on the board of the hospital. Our esteemed late friend, Tony Johnson, as the previous member for Mount Druitt, was instrumental in getting the hospital and it has proved its worth over the years. Indeed, for all the royalists in the gallery, it was opened by Her Majesty the Queen back in the seventies.

Given the background of community concern about Mount Druitt Hospital closing, I wanted to rattle off a few statistics. The number of patients waiting more than 12 months for elective surgery has been reduced by 88 per cent since March 2005, from 59 patients in March last year to just seven this year. The total surgical waiting list for Mount Druitt has been reduced by 22.9 per cent, from 580 patients last year to 447 in March this year. Attendance at the Mount Druitt accident and emergency unit in March 2006 was up 17.4 per cent to 2,137 people. In addition to this, the hospital is dealing with more serious cases. In March this year, there were over 315 admissions to wards for surgery and specialist care from the accident and emergency unit, 37 per cent more than March last year.

It is true that there has been a rationalisation between Mount Druitt and the new Blacktown hospital, recently completed by the Carr Labor government. The specialities that Mount Druitt has are working well. The idea that somehow the accident and emergency unit at Mount Druitt would be shut down has proved way off the mark. As I pointed out, these statistics are showing an even busier hospital. I guess the point I wish to emphasise is that, if the government would only make a greater financial commitment to our public hospitals, even these figures could be reduced quite significantly. The Howard government will throw a lot of money around in health but never, ever to a public hospital.

The other thing I want to point out is in respect of the dental clinic at Mount Druitt Hospital—the May Cowpe Centre. The late May Cowpe was a lovely person, although I suspect she might have been of a different political persuasion from mine. But that matters not. For many years she headed up the hospital’s ladies auxiliary, and they have done a fabulous job. Statistically, I think more money has been raised by Mount Druitt ladies auxiliary than by any other comparable ladies auxiliary. On May Cowpe’s passing, it was only fitting that this building be named in her honour.

The real tragedy is that, in trying to solve health issues that face the people of Australia, the government has consistently turned its back on dental health. A dental health program was in operation when the Howard government took office, which cost $100 million a year to run and in its last full year of operation looked after the dental needs of around 600,000 people. The great tragedy is that the cutting of this program left the May Cowpe dental clinic completely underutilised and there are now unacceptably long waiting lists to access the May Cowpe dental clinic at Mount Druitt.

We may think that teeth are just teeth and that nothing too serious can happen, but there are a whole range of teeth maladies, some of which if left untreated can lead to death. The government has a surplus of over $14 billion and it is a real tragedy that it is so heartless and indifferent to the dental health care of a nation that it will not embrace a scheme that was such an outstanding success and helped 600,000 of our fellow Australians—often aged pensioners and children. It is a black hole that the government is absolutely and totally disinterested in.

One of the early actions of the Howard government was to close the Mount Druitt Medicare office. In question time the Prime Minister is fond of reminding me—not that I need reminding—that my electorate has the highest unemployment of any in New South Wales. I wish it were otherwise. It means that I have a lot of people in my electorate who need access to a Medicare office. People who say that these things are available at Blacktown or Penrith do not understand the geography of Western Sydney. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see a Medicare office reopened at Mount Druitt. I did take up a petition when the office was about to close, and I have never seen a petition taken up with such enthusiasm in my electorate as the one to get the Medicare office reopened.

It is a pity that, at the very time the government is contemplating privatising Medicare, it does not have any plans to open a Medicare office in Mount Druitt. Shame! It shows how the Howard government treats people who happen to be represented in the federal parliament by a Labor member. Issues are not treated on their merit and the people are not treated with any degree of consideration or compassion. I am still committed to opening a Medicare office in Mount Druitt.

I also want to place on record my thanks to all those who signed the petition I circulated to have Herceptin listed on the PBS. Many thousands have already signed the petition, and we are working our way through them. It is an awful thing for a family which has a member who suffers from breast cancer to have to contemplate finding $66,000 for each year the family member needs to be treated with this drug. Tragically, I have met some families where a decision has been made to sell or remortgage a house just so the family member can receive this treatment. It must be an awful decision for those families to make. Perhaps I have misrepresented it somewhat—the families have said it is an easy decision for them because they value life over money and therefore have come to these decisions very readily—but these families are placing their financial security at some degree of risk by making such a generous sacrifice. Families should not have to make these decisions in respect of family members who have breast cancer when a drug is available that will put them into remission for a considerable period and will give them some quality of life, notwithstanding the ravages of this dreadful cancer of the breast.

When a government is wallowing around with a surplus of $14 billion—or, as the Treasurer would say, 14 thousands of millions of dollars—it is difficult to understand why they do not have compassion and why they cannot see why a federal government should be trying to assist our fellow Australians. I suppose what is at stake here is the belief that we have on this side of the House that, no matter what your income or your age, we should have access to a vibrant public health system that is able to treat you without serious cost—that, unlike in America, your monetary circumstances should never be a barrier to good health care. I will repeat that. On this side of the House, we believe in having a very strong and robust public health system so that, no matter what your financial circumstances, you as a citizen have as a right the ability to go and see a doctor, have an operation or have, notwithstanding the expense, appropriate medication given to you so that you either may be cured or, in the case of Herceptin, at least have your life prolonged and have some quality of life, despite having a very insidious disease.

So there are quite some differences between the government and Labor, and I have outlined some that impact on my electorate. I finish on this note: I do not understand why the government is trying to rush to privatise it. If we had some evidence that Medibank was not working well—its management were flawed, it lacked vision or it was unable to deliver services—these would be strong reasons to look at whether or not a change in the ownership structure would impact on better service delivery. But the government makes nothing out about it. In fact, in the budget it says it is committed to spending some $20 million trying to convince the people of Australia that selling Medibank is somehow going to be good for them. I am unconvinced. I suspect that the people of Australia will be very apprehensive about this move by the government. And it is absolutely regrettable that, in trying to influence members of parliament in their vote, it has attached some expenditure measures in this budget to the sale of Medibank. I think that that is wrong as well. I will be opposing any sale of Medibank as vigorously as I can in my own electorate. I support the amendment moved by the member for Hunter.

See this speech in context