House debates

Wednesday, 24 November 2010

Federal Financial Relations Amendment (National Health and Hospitals Network) Bill 2010

Second Reading

1:06 pm

Photo of Jill HallJill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Federal Financial Relations Amendment (National Health and Hospitals Network) Bill 2010, which implements the federal government’s financial relations aspect of the National Health and Hospitals Network Agreement, as agreed to by the Council of Australian Governments, other than Western Australia, on 10 April 2010—a day I well remember, as I welcomed the outcome of that COAG meeting because it delivers great benefits to the Australian people. At the same time I felt very sorry for the people of Western Australia, who stand to miss out on the benefits that will be coming to Australians throughout the rest of the country.

Under this legislation the Commonwealth is retaining and dedicating a portion of the GST to fund health and hospitals and is establishing a National Health and Hospitals Network Fund. It introduces a new process, which the minister must complete before seeking to reduce specific purpose payments for health care, including to Western Australia. The Commonwealth commits to providing no less than $15.6 billion in additional top-up funding over the period 2014-15 to 2019-20. The bill provides flexibility in the provision of this amount of money.

Reform of the health system became apparent to all members of this House not in the last parliament but in the parliament before that when the then Minister for Health and Ageing, the current Leader of the Opposition, referred terms of reference to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing to conduct an inquiry into health funding. He referred this matter to the committee because he was concerned that the health system was not operating effectively, that it could be more efficient. He recognised the need for change given that Australia had to have a health system that would be appropriate for the 21st century and beyond. The health and ageing committee brought down a wonderful report called The blame game – report on the inquiry into health funding.

The first recommendation of that report was that the Australian government, in conjunction with the states and territories, develop and adopt a national health agenda. It goes on to say that it should look at the roles and responsibilities of the different levels of government and at long-term sustainability of the health system, that it should support the best and most appropriate clinical care and that it should support affordable access to best practice, that it should look at structural reforms and inefficiencies, that it should give greater articulation to standards of service, that it should be responsive to the needs of the community and that it should redress inequities. That is just the first recommendation.

This report was tabled in the House in November 2006. By the time of the election, when the parliament rose in 2007, the then government had not responded. The then health minister had not shared with the parliament what his thoughts were on the report that he asked the member for Fairfax, the chair of the committee, to conduct. It was a very long, involved inquiry. If I might say so, the report was very detailed; it looked at all aspects of the health system. It identified that the current funding arrangements were not working. At the time that the terms of reference were given to the health and ageing committee, the then minister for health, the Leader of the Opposition, was keen to say that the states were shifting to the Commonwealth. The committee found that there was cost shifting both ways—the states to the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth to the states. In the long run it was the consumers, the Australian people, that were missing out. The report identified that very, very clearly. It also identified very, very clearly that there were issues of workforce shortage that needed to be addressed, and I am really sad to report to the House today that the then minister for health, the Leader of the Opposition, did nothing.

But I must say the Rudd government and the Gillard government have embraced the need for health reform. That health reform recognises the fine work done by the then health and ageing committee and recognises the changes that need to be made to ensure that all Australians can have quality health care and access to health services going into the 21st century and beyond.

The aspect of the National Health and Hospitals Network that we are looking at is how the GST is going to be used to fund health services and put money into public hospitals going forward into the 21st century. Seven separate health systems will be replaced by a single national hospitals network, remembering that one state is not part of this reform. It combines all public hospitals and all GP and related services. The Commonwealth is picking up 60 per cent of the funding of public hospitals. When the Leader of the Opposition was health minister he ripped a billion dollars out of our public hospital system. The Gillard government is agreeing to undertake 60 per cent of the funding for public hospitals—something that can only benefit all Australians.

This has needed to happen for a very long time, as was identified in the report The blame game – report on the inquiry into health funding. Health reform should have been undertaken many years before now. It really disappoints me, to say the least, that the opposition is continuing to be obstructionist in its response to the health and hospital reforms. It is refusing to support the legislation that we have before us today, legislation that addresses the issue of cost-shifting—which the then health minister was interested in at that time—and is putting in place a system that will benefit all Australians, with the Commonwealth taking full responsibility for all primary care and taking on the responsibility of 60 per cent funding for public hospitals.

It is setting up local hospital networks. In the area that I represent, there will be two local hospital networks. There is the Hunter New England local hospital network, which remains the same as it is at the moment, but it also sets up a Central Coast local hospital network. That is something that the people on the Central Coast have been calling for for a very long time. They wanted to have their own hospital network. They wanted to have a Central Coast focus on the delivery of health services. These reforms deliver that to the people of the Central Coast, and the feedback that I have had from my constituents is very, very positive.

Comments

No comments