Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I speak in relation to the Australian National Preventive Health Agency (Abolition) Bill 2014.

When I was Parliamentary Secretary from Health and Ageing in the last government a few facts were really in the forefront of my thinking, particularly as I was involved in negotiating the front-of-pack labelling with the states and territories and in consultation with the Australian Food and Grocery Council, Choice and the Public Health Association of Australia. Those facts were these: today, more than four million Australians are obese, almost 10 million are overweight, one in four children are overweight or obese and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are almost two times as likely as non-Indigenous Australians to be obese. Overweight translates into chronic diet related diseases, hospitalisation and significant rises in long-term care.

We know that well-planned prevention programs work. The National Preventative Health Strategy clearly demonstrates that by putting a few facts in front of all of us. We know that the health programs in the 19th century were very successful in improving the longevity of life and the health and wellbeing of people. In the 1950s three-quarters of Australian men smoked—a figure that is unimaginable today as preventive health strategies have worked to reduce the rate of smoking amongst men and, indeed, women.

Deaths from cardiovascular disease have decreased dramatically from all-time highs in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Road trauma deaths on Australian roads have dropped by 80 per cent since the 1970s. Even deaths from SIDS have declined by almost three-quarters. And a study commissioned by the Department of Health and Ageing in 2003 showed spectacular long-term returns on investment in working on tobacco, road safety and programs in relation to cardiovascular disease. It showed that across 20 years, from 1975 to 1995, these programs prevented about 400,000 premature deaths in this country, saving a cost to the taxpayer of $8.4 billion. That is more than 50 times greater than the amount spent on anti-smoking campaigns over that period. In America, a study in 2008 in relation to Prevention for A Healthy America, showed that a return on the investment of one dollar resulted in a return to the health system of $5.6 within five years.

So we know that good programs and projects work well in reducing overweight and obesity problems, harmful use of alcohol and tobacco control. We know these programs work. We know that these are big problems in our country, so this is not the time to save a few million dollars by getting rid of an agency that is doing its job and for a faux budget crisis that does not exist.

This particular legislation is short-sighted, and I have spoken on this legislation before when we were setting up this agency. I cannot believe the nanny state arguments from those opposite. This abolition is short-sighted; it will go towards adverse outcomes in our people's health. This budget rips $377 million from preventive health alone by the abolition not just of this agency—which is a measly $6.4 million, in the context of the budget for health and ageing across this country—it delays, of course, the National Partnership Agreement for adult public dental services and it makes a whole range of cuts, not just in terms of children and older Australians but also Indigenous Australians.

These are cruel cuts because they will have an adverse impact on health and wellbeing across the country. And, of course, they have abolished the Medicare Locals—something that the now Prime Minister specifically said he would never do when debating Kevin Rudd, the then Prime Minister, on national television. In my region, the West Moreton-Oxley Medicare Local has been providing wonderful preventive health services and front-line services in Indigenous health, support for GPs, support for older Australians, after-hours clinic funding and HACC funding as well. And they are getting rid of this.

This is a terrible budget, and I think the most egregious aspect is the extra seven dollars to visit your doctor. Often people go to see the doctor for preventive health reasons, and this particular decision is very short-sighted. Of course, it is all about allegedly saving money for the taxpayer. But, in fact, if you look at the last year, the budget outcome is $18.8 billion worse under this mob than it was under us. Across the forward estimates it results in being worse by about $7 billion than under us. So they should not come into this place and tell us that it is all about budget cuts and getting the budget back to surplus because PEFO actually revealed the true story.

Today we had the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection revealing that he looked at PEFO actually to establish the true situation for the actual economic outlook and forecast for the country. Finally we had the minister saying something that was true in relation to that issue. Clearly, the Minister for Health does not understand the need for preventive health programs.

I am glad that the shadow assistant minister for health is here because he has pointed out clearly many times—and I have heard him talk about this—the impact of preventive health strategy failure by the coalition in regional and rural areas. These are the facts: it is 1.3 times more likely that people in those areas will have diabetes; they are 1.2 to 1.3 times more likely to have arthritis; 1.2 to 1.3 times more likely to get a melanoma resulting in cancer; 1.1 times more likely to be obese; and, if they are male, 1.3 to 2.6 times more likely to suicide. And that list goes on and on. So regional and rural areas will suffer worse as a result of the cuts—the cuts with the GP tax and the cuts to preventive health strategy and programs in this budget. It is also a brutal budget for my shadow portfolio of Indigenous affairs. There was $125 million stripped from programs.

Even in Senate Estimates last Friday, departmental officials had to admit that the organisations that fund and deliver services across the country in regional and rural areas, including in remote places like Alice Springs and Utopia homelands and other places up in the Kimberley, as well as in cities like Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne will not know for six to 12 months whether those preventative health programs will still be funded. They have not been told and will not know for six to 12 months what will happen.

I say to the minister, who comes in here comes in and says things like he 'remains committed', they 'do not diminish', and their commitment is 'not jeopardised' by this legislation and by this decision to cut funding. This is Orwellian phraseology. If you say it; it does not mean it is going to happen. You have got back it up with political will and money. It is the sort of phraseology we saw in George Orwell's 1984war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, preventative health cuts equals preventative health care. That is the sort of language they are using. Those opposite cut the funding and claim to be still committed. How can they be?

I do not often quote this bloke, a Queensland LNP politician, but the Queensland Treasurer very clearly in his budget statement in the Queensland Parliament in George Street in Brisbane said:

Without a doubt though the most pressure relates to health. The problem is serious: National Partnership on Preventive Health—terminated; National Partnership on Improving Public Hospital Services—terminated. From 2017-18 the federal government is turning its back on the challenges of health funding.

That is what the LNP Queensland Treasurer in his budget speech said today. He went on:

With the ageing of the population and rapid advances in medical technology health expenditure is expected to grow by around 8 % per annum into the future. But the federal government—

Referring to the Abbott government—

thinks the states can survive with less. Their funding falls well short of what is required to meet the reasonable expectations of Queenslanders. Queenslanders can be reassured this LNP government will engage in a robust and vigorous debate with the federal government to protect their interests. This is a discussion we intend to have with the federal government over the coming months.

Good luck with that because they have cut the COAG process off in Indigenous health funding. They have cut the COAG process off in preventative health. So who are they going to discuss it with? This mob over there do not want to talk about it with the states and territories. The Queensland LNP Treasurer said today the consequences are devastating.

Let me give you an illustration in my area where this mob opposite, the government, actually do not care. When we were in government we funded in my electorate the HAPI Ipswich program—the healthy active people in Ipswich program—partnering with Jamie Oliver's Ministry of Food, Austcycle, the Heart Foundation Heart Moves and the Ipswich Hospital Foundation. The Jamie Oliver Ministry of Food is right in the heart of the Ipswich CBD, in D'Arcy Doyle Place. It is fully booked because people use the classes to learn about nutrition and how to cook well. I have seen young and old people there. In fact, I have seen primary school and high school kids there and I have even seen councillors from the Ipswich City Council there. I have visited there myself. It is a terrific initiative.

The HAPI Ipswich program has been terrific. It has been at the Ipswich show running these programs and holding classes. We funded that sort of preventive health strategy and program but it was terminated this year. It is gone; it is not being funded or continued on. That is one example locally in my electorate where the coalition has failed across this space.

The AMA is critical of the coalition in this. We see health professionals critical of these types of cuts. The new president of the AMA, Professor Brian Owler, made the point very clearly. He said of the health spending in the budget that he 'remained unconvinced'. He was talking about the $7 GP tax and he then referred to preventative health care. He said this:

Well, the safety net is a limit of 10 co-payments for people with concessions and also people under 16 years of age. But there are many people that fall outside of that safety net, particularly those with chronic disease. And so even a total of 10 $7 co-payments, $70, for some people, particularly if there are a number of people in the family, is prohibitively expensive.

Also concerned that in terms of preventative healthcare, making people for instance who want to go and have vaccination, if you're putting up a financial barrier to do that, for them to go and see their GP, it goes against the grain of what we've been arguing about the importance of preventative healthcare.

That was from the AMA.

The government has got their priorities wrong across this space. This is not about nanny-state stuff; this is about making sure that our people get the best health outcomes possible. It is also quite clear on cost benefit analysis that it is in the best interests of our economy as well as our society to make sure people are healthy and well, and live long productive lives and contribute.

This government is not listening to the expert advice. They do not like experts. They rejected world scientific consensus on climate change. They have not listened to experts when it comes to education. They have not listened to experts across a whole range of areas. We have not even got a minister for science in the government. What they failed to do is look long-term at the value of preventative health strategies, at the long-term sustainability of investment in preventative health, at the benefits to health outcomes, at the benefits to our economy and at the benefits to the health system.

We know what those investments can make. When we were in government, Labor provided $1.2 billion from 2010-11 to 2013-14 for those kinds of services nationally. We committed $516 million, as the shadow assistant minister said, for mental health services. We put a massive amount of funding across those spaces.

We know we must plan for the future, and that is why we established the National Preventive Health Agency to drive a preventative health agenda and provide the kind of assistance that goes beyond the cycle of three years of a parliament. We did it on the recommendation of the National Health and Hospital Reform Commission, the Preventative Health Taskforce and the National Primary Health Care Strategy in accordance with that strategy. So we listened to the experts and we did what we were supposed to do. This government will not listen to the experts. It will not listen to science. It will not listen to the healthcare professionals. It will not listen to Indigenous people who want to roll out the types of programs that I mentioned. It will not listen to councils like Ipswich City Council, which wants to roll out those types of programs. It is just not listening to preventative health.

See this speech in context