Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome some of the comments in the Minister for Health and Ageing's previous contribution, but I think they go further to underscore the fact that this is a terrible deal for the Commonwealth. As we mentioned before, when Kevin Rudd won the 2007 election the promise was that hospitals would be federally funded but locally run. As a principle, that is admirable. As the member for Lyne has commented on a number of occasions, that would have been a better and more desirable outcome. But the more we look in detail at these amendments the more we see the way in which the Commonwealth has capitulated.

Far from being a federal takeover or a greater concentration of funding power to try to drive changes, this has been a takeover in reverse. The states have effectively usurped the Commonwealth's power in relation to this bill and, I suspect, many others that we will see before the parliament. I asked the minister a very specific question about in what area the Commonwealth might have a final say. The minister tried to fob that off by saying that this was an independent authority, but if you look at the government's original intent in relation to this authority certain appointments were made by the minister, by the Commonwealth, and certain obligations were imposed on the authority by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth's intent was very clearly to try to drive this performance authority so that we could see better outcomes in our public hospitals.

It is abundantly clear—and it should be clear to all Australians—that this is yet another demonstration of a bad government in action. This is a government that has locked this nation's healthcare future in mediocrity. This is a situation that is of the Prime Minister's own making. In a way I feel for the current health minister because not only was she gazumped by Prime Minister Rudd but also she has been completely sidelined by this Prime Minister. It is humiliating for a minister, particularly for a cabinet minister, when that cabinet minister is put to the side because he or she has no capacity to deliver the outcome that the Prime Minister desires. I think that is part of what has happened here. The minister cannot come before this House with a serious and sincere look on her face and say that this is what she intended out of this process.

There is no final say for the Commonwealth, as there was in the original draft of the legislation, because the states have their fingerprints all over this bill. We can have a debate about federalism and the role of the states in the health system. That debate will no doubt take place in coming years, as it has in previous years. But people should be under no illusion that this does anything to end the blame game, to fix public hospitals, to improve standards. You only have to look at the detail. There is no financial penalty. I asked the minister what happens in a situation of proven incompetence or demonstrated poor clinical outcomes in a public hospital continuing under this process. What power does the Commonwealth have, without having to consult the states or territories, to deliver some sort of financial penalty on the states? What sorts of powers does that extend to?

I know that sometimes, particularly given 29 amendments have been moved, some of the detail gets brushed over. But there is a benefit in putting on the record what some of these amendments entail. I only have a short time, but I intend to detail a couple which serve to underscore our argument that this is a bad deal. Amendment (2) goes to amend section 5. It provides a definition of public hospitals, which is fine, and adds these words:

If a facility is situated in a State, the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory—

it is hard to imagine where a facility could otherwise be situated; so a public hospital anywhere in the country—

the Minister must not specify the facility in such an instrument without the written agreement of the State/Territory Health Minister of the State or Territory, as the case may be.

Ask yourself why the Commonwealth did not see fit to put those words into the original legislation, but does now. As I said, it goes to this federal government having completely given up on any reform. They were desperate to do a deal that they have surrendered everything that was going to provide capacity to improve our public hospitals which is what the Australian public demand. I have some other amendments which I will go to shortly, but I ask the minister to address directly those issues so that I can have a response to that particular question. (Time expired)

See this speech in context