Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Hansard source

We have arrived at a position where, when the minister goes on national television for an interview, even the interviewer, let alone the public, does not expect him to be asked a question about health. He does interview after interview; he talks about the leadership challenge; he talks about internal issues. He talks about anything other than health policy every time he does an interview. And do you know what? No-one is even surprised because, when he does talk about health in here, he never tells us anything about his policies. He probably spends a bit of time attacking us. He likes talking about Queensland politics. He tries doing everything he possibly can. He likes to belittle people—that is his main approach with me. But, Minister, the truth is that most people would like to know what you are offering them at this election. You have made a whole range of rock-solid guarantees in the past that have never been followed through.

I thought it was interesting: the minister made another rock-solid guarantee today—he said that there was ‘rock-solid support’ behind the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. I thought: ‘I’ve heard that somewhere before. What does his rock-solid guarantee actually mean?’ If I were the Prime Minister I would be worried that my most trusted lieutenant is making a rock-solid guarantee when the last one he made only lasted a number of days, or it might have been a month—certainly not very long and certainly it was not the highlight of the minister’s career. He has said as much himself. But that he actually used those words again—I wondered whether it meant that the leadership challenge was not really over.

The serious part of this whole debate is that Labor are in the business of laying out an alternative health and hospital plan for the future of the country. We have a $2 billion plan—new money on the table in addition to the money that is already there—that is going to kick-start a reform process. It is us as the Commonwealth putting our money where our mouth is and being prepared to actually take a step and say the Commonwealth needs to invest. We are going to push the states. We want them to pull up their socks in some areas too. If they do not want to play ball, then we will consider whether we take over financial control of hospitals. We have made that perfectly clear. There is nothing secret about that. Despite the minister’s posturing, we have made quite clear that our preference is to work with the states. We believe it will be the best outcome for the community if every Commonwealth health dollar and every state health dollar is used to maximum benefit in a cooperative way—get rid of duplication; get rid of all of the blame shifting and cost shifting.

We are going to this election with the clear message that, if that cannot be done, we will not let those negotiations and that inaction drag on forever. If the states will not play ball, we will go to the public and seek their approval to take over financial control of the hospitals. We will not just waltz into one hospital in one electorate in one state and say, ‘Have we got an offer for you!’ Ten weeks before an election we will not say, ‘Have we got an offer for you!’ when every other hospital and every other community in the country says: ‘What about us? What are you doing for us? What is the plan for us?’ The government has not done the work. Either the minister has not done the work or he is not prepared to argue to get it through his cabinet colleagues. Then he got caught—blindsided, I think—by the Prime Minister, who was prepared to do this in one seat and hope that it might have some electoral benefit but was not prepared to put it together as part of a comprehensive plan.

We are proud of the fact that we have a comprehensive plan which will be nationally consistent, because if it is not nationally consistent it is not going to be sustainable. That is the real risk for the community in northern Tasmania: is the government’s proposal going to be sustainable? It is fine to go in and offer it—and I am pleased that the minister was able to report today that the Tasmanian government and the Commonwealth government are having better negotiations on the outcome of this, because everyone needs that to be a successful proposal for that community—but the truth is that the work was not done first. The government just waltzed in and said they had an offer. There is absolutely no way they could make the same offer to every hospital around the country, even if there were the need, and we know that there are many people who will be left out by their proposal.

I am very concerned that the minister has just taken an extended smoko break. For someone who is so anti union I am surprised that he is prepared to make use of those sorts of award conditions, that he is prepared to just clock off when he has not got time to keep doing his work because he is more worried about saving the government’s skin. Here is Labor, delivering a plan and focusing on delivering better results for patients, when the Howard government is focusing on winning votes. We are interested in campaigning on health and providing better services to the community. We are interested in doing that in a long-term, sustainable way. We are interested in having a plan that is not just for 10 weeks, for this election period, but for the next 10 and 20 years. We are interested in really making sure that our health and hospital system is viable in future. If we do not retool and re-equip our health system for the future, we will not be able to cope with the challenges that we face.

Many members on this side of the House very much feel the ageing of the population. Many of us represent communities in which there are a large number of elderly people who need a different type of health care from what was needed when the number of elderly in the community was a much smaller proportion. We need to get it right. We need to have care that is not just hospital care but community care—appropriate care—and aged-care facilities. We need to deal with the growing burden of chronic disease. I went to a hospital in Bennelong the other day where 25 per cent of the patients were diabetic. They were not admitted particularly for diabetes related conditions—some of them were—but when the diabetes clinic that is linked to the hospital did a survey, 25 per cent were found to be diabetic. If we cannot ensure that we have systems in place where we can treat and prevent, where possible, diabetes or have better processes in our hospitals so that people with complex conditions and a range of comorbidities are able to be treated—

See this speech in context