Ann Sudmalis (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Sometimes when I sit in this chamber and listen to opposition speakers I wonder if we are all living in the same universe. The perception of reality is so completely different it seems that their perception is not only rose coloured, it is fractured as if they are looking through a kaleidoscope. Do not get me wrong, I like some of those opposite. But, really, what are they looking at when they check expenditure proposals from their side?

I would like to begin my contribution by likening the national budget to an apple tree. Our revenue can be seen as the apples on this tree, available for consumption by the states for federally funded programs and, unfortunately at this moment, for paying off national debt. In the past, at the end of the last coalition government, though not recently, the whole of the apple crop—or the money, the national revenue—could be spent in Australia or on foreign aid or on hospitals, schools or tax cuts. Now a big chunk of the apple crop has to be allocated to paying back debt—to the tune of almost $12 billion a year.

Those opposite have this really weird understanding of the apple crop. You cannot keep allocating apples—or money—to projects beyond the number of apples that you actually have on the tree. In Reality Land outside the House—not the bubble of illusion that exists with those opposite—each of us in this room has a budget. It may involve a mortgage, electricity, fuel, rego, food and living costs. We stick to our budget or we face bankruptcy. What on earth makes those opposite even considered that the national budget is exempt from the same process of living within our means?

Each of us knows that health has absolutely no chance of being a revenue-producing industry. It is by its very essence a support expenditure for our citizens. It is crucial that every dollar we spend in this portfolio is having the greatest effect on health outcomes, not just spreading dollops of cash into programs with no benefit to the patients. This is not just a current need; this is a future need. We on this side of the House recognise that well-spent and well-allocated dollars are the aim of a responsible government. In the past there were some members on the other side who also recognise this fact. Almost a year ago—and a couple of us have already quoted this—the opposition said about itself that it:

… would be kidding itself if it didn't recognise there were challenges in the budget and that savings needed to be found.

'There is no area that is going to be exempt,' …

'We have to look across the board.'

For the shadow minister for health, that is exactly what we are doing. I remind those opposite that trying to create a sustainable health system, including a sustainable Medicare, is not just a policy direction adopted by a conservative government; we are actually responsible for better economic management.

Let us just do a quick review of some of the most significant initiatives introduced by Labor to try to make health sustainable. During the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years waiting times for elective surgery increased and the bureaucracy associated with health grew but—do you know what?—not the front-liners in the hospitals. Private health insurance went right up and dental services were cut. From the 2006-07 financial year to the 2011-12 financial year there was a 27 per cent increase in departmental staffing, very few of which were actually on the front line. In the 2011-12 and 2012-13 financial years $403 million was retrospectively cut from the health budget due to parameter miscalculations. Okay, we need a new abacus over there.

I have to remind those opposite that private health insurance is not the domain of the rich, so making cuts to anything that relates to that hurts many people who just want to take out health insurance to take them through their retirement years. We all know that in every region in Australia many city areas have a growing number of older Australians. By natural circumstance, this means there will be a much higher demand on our health system. If we do not work out a sustainable strategy now, then my children, their children and the grandchildren of those opposite—in fact, the whole of our next generation—are going to be seriously disadvantaged as they age.

We are not just representing the people of today; we are representing the Australians of the future, and we are duty-bound to get an economy that is sustainable so we can invest in our health resources, we can sustain Medicare, we can keep our community healthy, we can have services that mean something to our community and our doctors can be trained. For those opposite who said, 'We've got a shortage of doctors,' I hate to tell you this, but it takes about 10 years to get a doctor qualified and into the system. So leaving it to a last-minute announcement is not cool. We really have to work hard to make this a sustainable health system.

See this speech in context