Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise to speak on this disallowance motion in relation to the Health Insurance (Dental Services) Amendment Determination 2012 (No. 1). Let us start by reminding ourselves what the effect of this motion is. The starting point is that in 2007, when the current Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Health, the coalition introduced the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. The instrument which gave effect to that decision was the Health Insurance (Dental Services) Determination 2007.

If we then fast forward to August this year, we observed a phenomenon which we see quite frequently under the present government—a dual Labor-Greens press conference. At that press conference there was an announcement in relation to a new dental package. Buried deep in the press release was a statement that the new package would replace the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. You need to read the entirety of the media release if you want to satisfy yourself that it is silent as to the question of when the current government intended to bring the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme to an end. You will also find that the media release is entirely silent on when the new arrangements will be in place.

In any event, we had that announcement and subsequently, on 3 September 2012, the present Minister for Health made a determination the effect of which was that, if it took effect, the previous determination, the 2007 determination, would cease as at midnight on 30 November 2004. In other words, if the minister's determination takes effect then the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme will cease operation with effect from 30 November 2012. If you read the details of the determination, it also becomes evident that, if you were not already receiving treatment under the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme as at 7 September 2012—that is, some days ago—it was no longer open to you to commence treatment under the scheme.

What we are therefore debating is the motion moved by this side of the House to disallow the minister's determination of 3 September. If the disallowance motion is successful then the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme will continue to operate in accordance with the 2007 determination. That brings us to the question: what is the thinking behind the coalition moving this disallowance motion?

As we have analysed this issue, it has been very difficult to avoid the conclusion that this is yet another example of the Gillard Labor government saying one thing and doing another. It says that it is introducing a new service. It says that it is introducing new arrangements for dental care involving $4 billion of dental spend on children, low-income adults and the bush. What it is actually doing is quite different from what it says it is doing. What it is actually doing is suspending, with immediate effect, the existing Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. And there will be no new scheme in place until 1 July 2014 at the earliest.

The rationale for the decision to bring the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme to an end is stated to be, amongst other things, that there is a cost blow-out. Of course, the question of the cost of any social program is one that the coalition will always take seriously. We have indicated in the past, and our shadow minister and others have repeated, our willingness to engage with the government on the details of how the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme operates and some of the cost drivers. Our willingness to engage has so far been rebuffed, and we find ourselves in the position where the minister has moved ahead to bring to an immediate end the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme and, therefore, in many ways, the only practical alternative now available to the coalition is to move this motion.

In the time available to me, I want to make essentially three points about our thinking behind doing so. The first is that this is, once again, an example of the way in which the Gillard Labor government always seems to mess up the transition from one set of arrangements to another. Whenever there is a new package introduced, whenever there is new law introduced, whenever new arrangements need to be implemented, it always seems to be done in an extraordinarily messy and clumsy way, with very little thought given to the mechanics of transition and very little thought given to how citizens are expected to adapt themselves to the change. The second point I want to make is that what is driving this messy transition, a transition which leaves many of our least privileged citizens facing some very difficult choices, is a desperate desire to engage in some political window-dressing and to get a good announcement, and, of course, to shore up relations between the Labor Party and the Greens party. The third point I want to make is to acknowledge that, of course, there will always be opportunities to examine and refine the operations of any scheme of public administration—the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme is no different—and that we are, of course, open to working with the government on that.

Let me start with the first point: the way that this Gillard Labor government always seems to mess up transitions. We have seen with the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme, as with so many other policy announcements by this government, something which is rushed in with very little notice and very little time for citizens to adapt themselves to the change and very little consideration of how a change might be introduced in a way which is least disruptive and difficult to manage. As many of my colleagues have pointed out, the way that this particular transition has been managed means that, amongst other things, those who are presently in the middle of dental treatment will have to cease it as at 30 November. It is hard to imagine a more disruptive and ill-thought-through way to implement a change of arrangements. These people include those who are suffering some very serious diseases indeed—diseases that, on any view, amply meet the description 'chronic diseases', including cancer, HIV and hepatitis; these are all diseases which are known to have, as a side effect, the causing of significant dental problems.

Unfortunately, the way the government has handled this issue is not very different from the chaotic mismanagement of the transition when the Home Insulation Program was suddenly announced to be terminated at very short notice, or the way the government introduced changes to the aged care funding arrangements earlier this year—and I have had many representations from aged care facility operators in my electorate about how difficult it is to adapt their operations to a change being announced at very short notice—or, indeed, from the introduction of the carbon tax, and, again, I and my colleagues have had many representations from industries which, even weeks before 1 July, were still uncertain as to how that particular legislative package was to operate. I am sorry to say that there is a pattern of this government messing up transitions, and that pattern is repeated in the case of the particular determination the disallowance of which the House is presently debating.

The second point I want to make is that good policy and good transition management has come a distant second to the government's political agenda, driven by two principal motivations: firstly, to keep the Greens party happy, and, secondly, to keep those aspiring to return to the position of prime minister at bay. It might be said, and often is said, as a general principle that an apple a day keeps the doctor and indeed the dentist away. It also it might also be said as an explanatory principle of what is going on here that an unfunded policy announcement a day keeps Kevin away. Because that is, frankly, one of the principal motivations behind what is going on in this shambolic policy process, the disallowance of which the House is now debating.

Amongst other things, this new package announced by Minister Plibersek together with a Greens party senator is completely unfunded. It forms part of the $120-billion black hole of unfunded policy announcements from this government in recent months. That, amongst other things, is the reason why one of the truly significant components of what is happening here is to cut off the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme with almost immediate effect. That is driven by a desperate desire to try and claw back some money in an attempt to fund at least a small part of this massive, yawning and ever-expanding gap.

I cannot help noting that in the media release from the minister and in the transcript of her joint press conference with a senator from the Greens party, there was a very amusing spectacle of a journalist asking the questions as follows: 'what sort of time frame are you looking at for the scaling up?' and, 'how would you pay for it?' That produced, remarkably, a response from the Greens party senator. We all know the Greens are completely indifferent to the question of how anything is to be funded but I do think this is a particularly delicious example of the genre. The relevant Greens party senator had this to say, 'I think, like the minister, today is a day to celebrate the fact that people right across the country are now going to be able to access dental care in a way that they had previously not been able to. The cost is not going to be a barrier anymore for many people.' That was all the relevant Greens party senator had to say in answer to the questions: how would you pay for it? Where is the money coming from?

I cannot help reminding the chamber that responsible political parties keep a careful eye on how promises are to be funded. We have the extraordinary spectacle of the present government building up a roster of unfunded promises amounting to some $120 billion in an unfunded policy black hole, egged on by their good friends in the Greens party to whom the whole question of how policy might be paid for is one that is so theoretical and irrelevant that they do not even deign to give it any consideration.

Let me turn briefly to the third point I want to address, which is the question of whether there are opportunities to review the way in which the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme works. We have heard from the minister at some length her bitter dislike of the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme, which, she argues, is poorly targeted. It is refreshing to see a minister in this government expressing even lip service to the question of careful targeting of government expenditure. On all the evidence, this is merely a convenient excuse for the government's political objective of getting a new announcement out there and desperately looking for some areas where it can find some funding to back up that announcement. Let us be clear. No scheme of public administration is ever perfect. There will always be opportunities for improvement. There will always be opportunities to look for efficiencies. The coalition has consistently signalled that we stand ready to work with the government on the question of whether there are refinements necessary to the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. There may well be areas where we could work constructively together. Our shadow minister and others have repeatedly made that point.

It is very difficult to avoid the conclusion that the government is simply looking for a convenient excuse to axe a particular policy which it does not like for a whole range of reasons. Let me conclude by saying this disallowance motion was moved because this is very bad policy to manage a transition in such a chaotic way. This is driven, as is so often by this government, by political considerations and not by good policy management.

See this speech in context