Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, he is a good doctor, as the member interjects—and a good member of parliament, if I may suggest. Obviously, neglecting oral health can and does lead to other complications. If there are other complications, the patient enters the health care system and Medicare arrangements kick in. I have said that I will support this legislation, but it seems fanciful when you read in the minister’s second reading speech that it is for those who have chronic illness. In this bill, we are presenting to the Australian public a magnanimous gesture of money for those who have chronic illness. If they have a chronic illness that is left unattended, then, quite obviously, they will enter the medical system and Medicare will provide. So, in a sense, the bill does not really provide anything that would not be provided if you left the chronic illness alone and did not tend to the person: they would end up in hospital and Medicare arrangements would apply.

I think we have to go much further than that and include normal oral health in Medicare arrangements. That is not to say that cosmetic dental health should be included; I believe people should pay for that. But, if there is normal treatment which in the long term can produce enormous saving to the health budget, we should look seriously at it and provide the funding. I am hopeful that one of the major parties will take that issue to the election, because it is something that is much needed and it has the potential to be a vote winner with the public.

Mrs Ruth Mathews is a constituent in my electorate. I do not know how old Mrs Mathews is but she probably would be in her 70s. She has been a very active woman all her life and her husband, Charles, is equally active. Mrs Mathews has taken it upon herself to create a petition. I think something like 4,000 signatures have been presented to the parliament to this date. This lady is not a wealthy woman, but she has taken it upon herself to stand in the streets of Tamworth to get people to sign the petition. She has a solution to the problem. She believes, and I believe, that people would be prepared to pay something for the solution. People are not just demanding of government; they would give up something to have dental care provided to everybody—to their grandchildren and their grandparents. I have questioned many people in my electorate, and they would rather see something like this taken care of than get a tax cut. We have had plenty of room for tax cuts in recent years, because of the surplus, the economic management et cetera—we have heard it all before. People are saying that they would rather have more money spent on health and dental care than receive those tax cuts, so I think it is important to take those views on board. I return to the petition of Mrs Mathews, which says:

TO THE HONOURABLE THE SPEAKER AND MEMBER-S OF THE HOUSE OF REPRE-SEN-TATIVES ASSEMBLED IN PARLIAMENT.

The Petition of Citizens of Australia.

Draws attention of the House of the inadequacy of DENTAL HEALTH CARE which can lead to life threatening diseases.

Your petitioners therefore request the House that we, the undersigned, implore you to introduce a National Dental Health Scheme, as a matter of urgency, to be funded by a 1% levy of taxable income, this amount to be added on to the Medicare levy.

I do not know the mathematics, but my guess would be that a one per cent levy would raise an enormous amount of money, far in advance of what is actually required to address the problem. Mrs Mathews is quite simply suggesting, and I think the majority of Australians would support her, that we will pay. We have a problem. The states have not taken care of it in the past. Keating had a go for a while and then it was axed, or terminated, depending on which side of the fence you want to listen to.

The problem is back: 650,000 Australians cannot get basic dental care. We have heard about the waiting lists. We have heard about people with chronic illness and we have heard about people with pliers. A lady in Uralla, in my electorate, this year pulled out a tooth with a pair of pliers. So the problem is there, and rather than find out who is to blame or who has the biggest amount of money in town, whether $290 million equals $384 million or vice versa—the complexities of these arguments do not fascinate the electorate. People want the problem solved. They see the role of government as providing the basic needs of constituents. As members of parliament we all know that health is No. 1, health is No. 2, health is No. 3 in terms of issues of importance.

This is an enormously important issue that can be addressed, given our budgetary circumstances, and should be addressed. Even if it cannot be addressed under those budgetary circumstances, I guess the message of Mrs Mathews is that people are prepared to pay a bit more if basic services are provided. In my view, there is an underlying reason why these services are not being provided: neglect.

The Commonwealth does have responsibility for this issue, which cannot fobbed off to the states—that is, dental training. Some years ago, Dr Alec Noble, who is a retired dentist in my electorate, came to me and indicated—and I forget the actual numbers—that about 60 new dentists come into the market in New South Wales each year. Some of them come from overseas and will return to their places of origin, probably 15 will go into research and the majority of those left will practise in the major metropolitan areas, and there are very few who come into the regional areas, in this case, of New South Wales. They can go anywhere in Australia, but there are about 60 who come onto the market in New South Wales each year. I think the average age of dentists in Australia at the moment is probably higher than the average age of farmers, which is about 56, so there is a real problem in relation to placement.

If, suddenly, the basic oral treatment became a basic Medicare item, where would people get treatment? Where are the dentists who could actually provide that treatment? I think that whatever is going on is a fairly cute reaction to a problem that has been there for many years but not addressed. We cannot allow these people to access Medicare because it will show a failure in the training of dentists, and that will create a greater problem. That in itself is a very distressing conclusion to arrive at.

So what do we do? The government has, to its credit, initiated training. We not only have a lack of numbers being trained; we also have a lack of professionals wanting to go back to regional areas. We all know the arguments that a regionally trained doctor will more likely find school teachers—

See this speech in context