Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It really is a privilege for everyone in this chamber to speak on behalf of Australian nurses. That is what this MPI debate is really about. Without being a little self-indulgent and falling back on lists of talking points, shouldn't this be a moment for us to recognise this incredible profession? Often nurses are bound by paperwork, which I think is partly our fault in this chamber, and are sometimes short on energy and hands, but they are never short on caring. These people do an amazing job. I note also that in regional Australia they probably have the best workforce distribution of any profession. Nurses will go to the ends of the earth and every corner of Australia to deliver their great trade and their wonderful caring. I thank them.

This does raise the question: what provoked the debate today? The Minister for Health exposed the fact that we have some very important people in Canberra today. None of my nursing friends are in Canberra today, no. There are some senior ranking union officials in Canberra. That is why all of a sudden the spotlight is shining on nursing for the first time in years. This is the first time in years they have brought up nursing. There is no doubt about it: the Minister for Health exposed the puppet strings and the fact that they will jump for whoever will get them preselected.

In reality we have a complete disparity between what the union says and what the nurses say. I spent time last week with nurses working in remote Australia and I did not hear them singing from any of the song sheets they have over there. The more I listen to the politics over there the more I realise they do not know much about how a hospital works and when the visiting hours are around the corner. When you dig down and know what life is like working hard at delivering care on the wards, the one thing I think you would ask for—and I do not want to put words in anyone's mouth—is focusing the resources and the attention of the government on front-line health care, making sure that money is spent on patients.

Over the last six years that mob over there had every chance in the world to prove that they could do that but they set up another authority. They slipped it through the parliament. There was a deal with the Greens. What did we get? More high-rise buildings full of bureaucrats and a few more water bubblers, tea trolleys and lumbar supports. None of that was going to help patients, was it? That is the point. That is the raw test of the government's commitment to looking after the ill, the sick and the needy.

This government will never shirk making sure that those on the front line are looked after. That works right through the whole system. We do not employ large numbers of well-meaning people in authorities to tell us the answers we already know to questions. We certainly do not start getting spooked and worried that they are not going to become union members. That is not of any great concern to patients, is it? Patients do not want to know they are being cared for by a union member; they want to know they are being cared for by qualified nurses who are there in appropriate ratios and properly supported by our health system.

Ms Butler interjecting—

I will take that interjection from the member for Griffith. Queensland has shown a stunning turnaround in A&E waits and in waits for surgery that no-one ever thought was possible. What did they do? They did not do it by taking money off the front line, no. They sorted out corporate health and now we are seeing the money directed to where it is really needed.

The second thing is duplication. We want to know that between federal and state services we do not have ridiculous overlaps. We need a health department federally but we do not need one of 5,000 people where none of them treat patients. If you talk to ordinary, everyday Australians, they will say to you, 'I just want to know that when my child is ill I can be seen by a well-supported, qualified workforce in A? and, if I need to get an operation, I know that that will also be available.' Practice nurses are there thanks to coalition initiatives. We have got practice incentive payments there to look after the doctors that do the supervision. We have got the GP numbers increasing from 1,200 to 1,500. They are the real changes that make a difference.

How would we invest in health infrastructure to help those nurses to work? Let's compare and contrast again. How would Labor do it? They would build a superclinic. That is right, a great big Taj Mahal, like the one in Ipswich or the one in Redcliffe, with no doctors—empty, treating no-one. The lights are on but no-one is home. They have even illuminated the cross, but there is nothing going on inside. It reflects a little bit of what is happening on the other side of this House. What are we doing? It is a dollar-for-dollar investment. Practices around the country put up a dollar and we match the dollar with government funds. Then we know the clinicians have put their heart in it and they will use that infrastructure appropriately. You will see more changes and more improvements. Yes, we wave goodbye to authorities. No, we owe nothing to the unions. Yes, on this side, we will do everything we can to serve those on the front line, including nurses around Australia.

See this speech in context