House debates

Monday, 16 June 2008

Dental Benefits Bill 2008; Dental Benefits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008

Second Reading

8:07 pm

Photo of Tony ZappiaTony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak in support of the Dental Benefits Bill 2008 and theDental Benefits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008. These bills are further examples of the Rudd government delivering on yet another election commitment, and doing so very quickly in this term of government. This substantial commitment of $780 million is made up of $290 million towards the Commonwealth Dental Health Program and $490 million for the Teen Dental Plan. The need for this expenditure is urgent, and it is important that this policy be delivered as quickly as possible because, as we have heard from speakers on both sides of this House, the number of people on waiting lists for dental treatment, and the compounding financial and health costs and the deteriorating quality of life of those people, continues to rise. The quality of their lives continues to suffer.

I can speak firsthand about this because I have met a number of the people that fall very much into that category and I have seen the impact it has on their lives. People who have problems with their teeth cannot eat certain foods and that, in turn, has compounding effects on their general health and, quite often, other health complications arise. As has been proved time and time again by the medical profession, poor eating habits are frequently the cause of other medical problems. I have also seen the social impacts on people. One pensioner was telling me in the lead-up to the election campaign about how the fact that he could not get a new set of dentures—he could not afford them—meant that he had to start cutting out part of his social life. He felt entirely uncomfortable in going out and doing the sorts of things that he had been doing, firstly, because he could not enjoy the food and, secondly, because he did not like the way his teeth looked. It caused him to lose a lot of self-confidence.

In the second reading speech, the Minister for Health and Ageing highlighted how some 650,000 Australians are on public dental waiting lists and how 30 per cent of Australians are reported to avoid dental care because of the cost of those services. On almost a daily basis we hear concerns raised by families, by people on low incomes and by pensioners about how difficult it is to face cost-of-living pressures. There is no question that that is happening, and we know that there are a lot of people out there doing it tough—so you can very easily understand how 30 per cent of Australians are actually avoiding dental health care because they simply cannot afford to go to the dentist. It becomes one of the low priorities of their expenditure when it perhaps ought to be one of the high priorities. But, because it is something that they can make do with and learn to live with in the short term, they keep putting off the expenditure. Sadly, the fact that they do so means that, ultimately, the expenditure that they incur further down the track is much, much higher as a result of the consequent health issues that arise. So, whilst they might think at the time that they are putting their money into something that is more urgent, perhaps they are actually making the wrong choice about that.

We also heard from the minister how 50,000 people end up in hospital each year because of preventable dental conditions. Every time this happens it means that someone else has to wait in line for services that they also need. These people would not have to wait in line if the dental care were there and the 50,000 people had not been forced into hospital through neglect of their dental health needs. The minister also talked about how tooth decay is Australia’s most prevalent health problem. I am not surprised to hear that, given the withdrawal of funding from the Commonwealth Dental Health Program by the previous Howard government. Clearly, if you are going to withdraw $100 million a year from a service, someone is going to suffer. Ultimately, the people that are going to suffer are the people that are in need of that service. When you consider that $100 million in funding was withdrawn over a 10-year period and when you consider that dental health is the second biggest health expenditure of Australians—in the latest figures that I was able to obtain some $3½ billion was spent on dental health in one year alone; I think it was 2005-06—you can understand how dental health is one of those areas where people do spend a lot of money. The withdrawal of a billion dollars, or thereabouts, over a 10-year period can make a huge dent in the services that are provided to people that need those services.

The minister also talked about how, between 1996 and 1999, five-year-olds experienced a 21.7 per cent increase in deciduous decay. That is effectively a 21.7 per cent increase over a four-year period. Isn’t it interesting how that increase coincides with the withdrawal of the Commonwealth dental service? I might come back to that a bit later on because I want to say something about some of the remarks that I have heard from speakers on the other side of the House about who is responsible for dental health services in this country. Those statistics that the minister referred to are appalling statistics and they highlight both the urgency of this legislation and the rightful, widespread condemnation of the Howard government for axing the Commonwealth Dental Health Program and in doing so, as I said a moment ago, ripping $100 million per year from the public dental health system. The overwhelming numbers of people who make up the statistics that I referred to earlier are the people who are already the most disadvantaged in our society. They are the pensioners, those on low incomes and the children of parents on low incomes. Those children end up being the victims of all of this because, unlike even their parents, they have had no say in this matter whatsoever. They are the most vulnerable that you could refer to.

Quite understandably, it is those people who miss out because, quite frankly, if you are better off you are likely to be able to afford the dental services that you need and, as you need them, you access them from the public system or the private system. But if you cannot afford them you are the one who is going to go without, just as you have to go without in so many other areas. It begins a downward spiral in your life, because if you do not access the services you need when you need them, as I said earlier on in my remarks, it starts to create other health issues and on it goes. The importance of this bill is that not only does it deliver the $780 million I referred to to the dental needs of Australia but it delivers to those people who most need the money and the support and who would most likely go without if the federal government were not providing this level of support.

I want to talk about another matter, though. I hear speakers from the other side say time and time again that when it comes to the provision of dental services the responsibility lies with the states—as if dental health is not part of overall good health. I was pleased that the member for Moreton reminded me about the Constitution and that section 51, part xxiiiA specifically refers to dental health being an obligation of the federal government. But putting that to one side for a moment, I think that every Australian would quite rightly believe that the federal government has some responsibility when it comes to the provision of health services, and to suggest that dental health is not health but something totally different is totally mind-boggling. The extraordinary absence of logic in suggesting that one part of your body does not come under the broad scope of health because it is dealt with by a specialist who is referred to as a dentist totally baffles me. I have to say that I cannot understand the logic in using the line that it is a state responsibility because dentists are, for some reason, a special category, and I suspect that no-one else in Australia can either.

Comments

No comments