David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Gellibrand proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The cost of living pressures facing working families because of the Government’s policies on health, industrial relations and childcare.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It will be interesting to see if the Minister for Health and Ageing can actually do anything that is related to his portfolio when we have this debate today about the Howard government’s rising health costs. We have seen what his favourite behaviour is in this House—that is, to talk about everything other than health. The only thing that he thinks he is an expert in is anything that is related to attacking the Leader of the Opposition or something else causing trouble. He is usually actually attacking you, Mr Speaker.

Today I want to talk about what has happened under his stewardship of this portfolio; how Australian families, mums and dads, are facing spiralling health costs every day because of his government’s policies. I have to tell members on this side of the House that when I first took on this portfolio and had the surprise of seeing the minister running around inside the halls of the parliament in his sporting gear, I thought he was actually doing his exercise. What I have found out since, having followed what he does in the portfolio more closely, is that he is actually practising his parliamentary strategy—that is, to run away from any health issue that is ever raised.

We ask him about reform that is needed in the health portfolio: off he runs. We ask him about the costs that parents are paying when they go to the doctor—an increase of 100 per cent in out-of-pocket expenses since this government was elected—and the minister runs away. We ask him about chronic disease and he stands up in this parliament and ridicules chronic disease, and then he runs away. He does not believe that he should take any responsibility for the growing crises in the health portfolio.

We cannot afford in this nation to have a health minister who is tired of the job. We cannot afford to have a minister who is bored with the job. We cannot afford to have a minister who has stopped listening to stakeholders’ concerns and does not care about the deep problems in the health system. On this side of the House, we do not ever want parents to have to say, ‘Can I afford to take my kids to the doctor?’ We do not want parents making decisions about the health care of their children because they cannot afford to properly protect them.

Look at the rotavirus vaccine. Rotavirus gastroenteritis is a preventable disease that strikes young children. It is a dreadful disease; they can get sick and dehydrated very quickly. Many thousands of children end up in hospital with this disease every year. In fact, 27 children a day have to go to hospital with rotavirus, and the minister could stop that immediately. PBAC has already recommended that this vaccine should be approved, but cabinet is just sitting on its hands. The minister is not pursuing this, and every day individual mums and dads have to make the decision about whether they can afford a $200 or $300 vaccine because this minister cannot be bothered to push for their interests.

I hope the minister is going to tell us when he will approve this vaccine. We cannot afford to go through another winter, which is when this virus peaks. It is expected that 10,000 children will be hospitalised this year. We have parents looking to the government, saying: ‘How can you help us? How can you protect our children from this disease? What if we don’t have the $200 or $300 to get this vaccine?’ The minister has the power to fix this, and instead he is doing nothing or, as I said at the start, just running away from an issue that affects every family every single day. He spends all his time looking at what sorts of silly stunts he can run in question time instead of thinking seriously about our health policy.

What about dental care? We have thousands of children going to hospital for preventable dental illnesses because this government has completely washed its hands of dental care. This takes us to the other favourite strategy the minister has in his portfolio: if he is not running away from something, he is standing still and blaming somebody else. But when do we actually see him fixing anything? With dental care, this is the classic situation: he jumps up and down and says, ‘This is the states’ responsibility.’ He avoids the fact that there was a Commonwealth dental scheme. He avoids the fact that it is even in the Constitution that the Commonwealth has a role to play in dental services. He avoids the fact that the government has a role to play in providing dental services for veterans. Instead, the minister is happy to have hundreds of thousands of people, including many children, on waiting lists around the country not being able to get the dental care they need, and 50,000 people each year going to hospital with preventable dental conditions because this minister says he is not going to fix it.

We cannot afford to have a health minister who is going to approach the portfolio in this way. We cannot afford to have a health minister who says: ‘It’s okay. We expect working families to be able to find all that money to look after their kids’ teeth. We expect them to be able to find the money to pay for the rotavirus vaccine. We expect them to find the money for a 100 per cent out-of-pocket increase in doctor’s expenses and we expect them to be able to find the money, if they have private health insurance, for a 46 per cent increase.’

The government introduced the changes to the private health insurance rebate—a policy that we supported—but they made the promise when they introduced this rebate that it would keep premiums down. And what do we see? A whopping 46 per cent increase in the cost of private health insurance. Working families are hit in all directions when it comes to healthcare costs: they are hit with increased private health insurance expenses; they are hit with extra costs for dental; they are hit with extra out-of-pocket expenses for doctors and the list just goes on.

We now have the Medicare surcharge levy, also part of the government’s reforms when they introduced the private health insurance rebate. It was said by the minister at the time, the minister’s predecessor—I think his predecessor by two—that this was going to be a tax on the wealthy. They were only going to be charging this levy to the wealthy who chose not to be privately insured. We now have 350,000-plus people who are earning below the average wage and getting whacked with this levy. How is that fair for working families? How are they supposed to find in their budget these extra healthcare expenses when the cost of living is getting tighter for them every day?

I do not want to live in a country—and I am sure there is no-one on this side of the House, Minister, who does—where people cannot afford the health care they need, when they have to make a choice about whether they go to the doctor’s with their sick children because they have to look in their wallets first to see if they have enough money to go, rather than doing what is in the interests of the kids.

The minister can stand up here every day and say, as he often does about health: ‘This is all the states’ fault. If there is any problem in the hospital system, it is all the states’ fault, Minister, you cannot keep saying that it is all the states’ fault when you are neglecting your duties, when you are neglecting paying attention to preventable diseases that would keep people out of hospital. You cannot keep doing that.

The minister had the cheek earlier this week to stand up in the parliament and ridicule the idea of paying more attention to chronic disease. He ridiculed the idea that we might be worried about this tsunami of chronic disease that we have to face. But, for his government, less than two per cent—I think it is 1.7 per cent—of national health expenditure is on prevention measures.

Do you know why the minister really does not care about prevention? Probably because he has no sympathy for those who are suffering from diabetes, cardiovascular disease or other conditions. He does not worry about them. The minister is not worried for one second about the people who are suffering, because he is just rubbing his hands together and saying, ‘They will end up in state hospitals and I will stand up in the parliament and blame them.’ That is not the way for a health minister to run his portfolio. We need a health minister who is prepared to be interested in health—not someone who just stands up here enjoying the toing and froing of parliament, attacking the Leader of the Opposition when he feels like it or coming out with some silly stunt. Families in this country want a health minister who is interested in administering the health portfolio. They want a health minister who is worried about the costs of health care. They want a minister who understands what a heartbreaking decision it is to say, ‘Can we afford $200 or $300 for a vaccine’—a vaccine that has been approved by your advisory committee—‘or do we take the risk and hope that our child does not get sick?’

I am sure the minister has been to plenty of hospitals and visited plenty of emergency departments. I am sure he has seen children suffering from rotavirus gastroenteritis; it is not a happy thing. No-one wants their small children to be in that situation. We know that there are some diseases we cannot stop. We know that there will be times when children will get sick and we cannot do anything about it. But in this instance there is a clear, preventative action that this government can take—that the Howard government is responsible for taking—but that the minister refuses to take. The PBAC recommended it in November; we are now in March. You cannot wait any longer, Minister. If you keep waiting, we are going to have another 10,000 children in hospital this year who do not need to be. They are calling on you to take action.

The minister has been happy to stand up here being dismissive about the growing threat of chronic disease. I know that many people on this side of the House have been campaigning in their electorates with the growing number of stakeholders who are concerned about how we deal with diabetes, mental illness and cardiovascular disease, but we have the minister standing up here saying: ‘Actually, the government has taken some initiatives. We are spending $200 million on some Medicare initiatives.’ Minister, those initiatives are fine, but overall we still have the government spending a tiny portion of its money on chronic disease—on the illnesses that are responsible for more than 70 per cent of deaths in this country. We need to make sure that the minister is prepared to look again at the priorities of the government. We want him to have some reformist agenda.

I have been at a number of conferences with the minister recently where he has proudly stood up and said that he is anti-reform, and he has used the motto of the medical profession, which is ‘Do no harm’. There is not a doctor in this country who would stand by if their patient was at risk, Minister. If your portfolio is at risk because you are not looking at the things that are causing and presenting challenges for the future, then you are not doing no harm. Taking no action will actually cause some harm.

Even the Productivity Commission this week, when they released their report on the national reform agenda, made it completely clear that this is not just the minister ignoring health imperatives and the pressures that they are going to put on families every day; the minister is also ignoring important national imperatives. He is a minister in a government that prides itself on having a great economic record, but we have the national reform agenda, the Productivity Commission’s report, saying, ‘If we do not take action on preventable disease and chronic disease, we are giving up an opportunity to improve our gross domestic product by six per cent.’ That is a huge increase. In fact, the Treasurer actually spoke about that today. He obviously has not highlighted the health section of that for your attention. It says we must take some action, or else the productivity of this nation will be affected. People cannot be full, participating members of the community if they are suffering and losing many days and years of work through chronic disease. You have to be prepared to tackle this, Minister, or you are not doing your job as the health minister.

Look at the way working families are being put under pressure every day with the spiralling costs of health care. We have heard, through questions from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, that many women are being put under pressure when they are working under Australian workplace agreements and getting paid less than they would be if they were working under collective agreements or certified agreements. We have people being squeezed in all directions. They are earning less because of the government’s policies. They are being charged more because of the government’s policies. I know that the member for Jagajaga has been pursuing the spiralling costs of child care. That is another way that working families are getting hit because of the government’s policies. We cannot afford to have health be yet another one of those things that are hitting working families in their hip pockets. We all have people who come into our offices to raise concerns about not being able to afford pharmaceuticals or not being able to afford to go to the doctor. We know that they turn up in our hospital system. It is not adequate for the minister to say, ‘That’s okay. I’ll just run away or blame somebody else for it.’ Minister, you have a lot of the levers in your hands. You can actually help fix these problems. Working families in this country expect the health minister to do so.

We want some answers about how you are going to help keep premiums down for private health insurance. This is what the government promised when they introduced their initiatives. In fact, the minister had the cheek, when the increases were announced last week—4.5 per cent on average—to say that these were really good figures. Since when is a 4.5 per cent increase, which is anything from $50 to several hundred dollars, depending on the type of product you have, good news for a working family when they have to add that into their budget? They are not getting anything extra for it. It is the same policy they have had year after year, and now they have another 4.5 per cent to bring it up to 46 per cent. Minister, what are you going to do about that? Why are you taking out of the law of this country that the government should play a role in minimising premiums? Why are you running away from that? We know what the answer is. Minister Wooldridge’s promise that premiums would be kept under control has already been broken, and now you are taking it out of the law to make sure that nobody can try to hold you to account for your failings.

Working families cannot afford to have this health minister in the portfolio any longer. They need a minister who is actually interested in fixing their problems. They need a minister who is not going to run away, spending his time jogging around the parliament and working out the smart lines he wants to use against the Leader of the Opposition. We want him interested in the health of Australian families and we want to know what he is going to do to take some of the pressure off the cost of living for working families. (Time expired)

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course the government does not want people to worry about whether they can afford to visit the doctor. Of course no-one wants to see chronic disease rampant in our community. Of course we all want to see happy, healthy people in a cohesive society. The difference, if I may say so, is that the opposition is talking but the government is acting. The government has policies to deal with this, but all the opposition has is a series of complaints.

It is all very well for the shadow minister for health to stand up in this place and talk about things which might, in a perfect world, be done differently, and it is all very well to ask, having seen the government do 99 things, what it will do about the 100th thing. I have not had very many dealings with the shadow minister for health; she has been in the portfolio for only three months. I am sure she is a highly competent politician and I am sure she is a decent human being but, on the evidence of what we have seen today, there is a rather long way to go before she is a credible shadow minister.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why don’t you just fix some of the problems you are responsible for?

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Gellibrand should be well aware that the chair will not tolerate interjections after she has had her chance to speak.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listened to all of her tirade in courteous silence. I listened to all the accusations of bad faith without interjecting. I listened to all her shrill claims about how I did not care and how I had no interest. I took all that stuff because I thought someone who had been in the job for only three months could be excused for going over the top occasionally. However, the shadow minister would have a lot more credibility if she actually did a bit of homework.

I do not pretend for a second that this government is perfect. I do not pretend for a second that as health minister I have all the answers. I do not pretend for a second that I am a model of every last bit of human sympathy. Of course I have my weaknesses and my failures, but I think the government do have a good record on health. I think we have diligently addressed the problems of our health system as they have occurred to us. Sure, there are some things that we have not done—not because we do not care about them but because they really are the responsibility of others.

I ask the shadow minister for health: is there anything which is fairly and squarely the responsibility of this federal government that has not been addressed? Sure, there are areas where maybe we could do more. Sure, if we had more money, we could do more. Sure, if advertising campaigns were more effective we might get better results, but I do not think that any fair-minded observer who looked at the record of this government in health, particularly in that period that I am most familiar with—the last 3½ years—would say that there has been the slightest evidence of lack of interest or the slightest evidence of carelessness about this portfolio.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about rotavirus?

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Gellibrand is warned!

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She constantly interjects, ‘What about rotavirus?’ Let’s take rotavirus. There was a recommendation from the PBAC in December, at about the time the shadow minister for health occupied that position, that rotavirus be put on the national immunisation program. For some time after that, there were negotiations between the government and the suppliers over price. Those negotiations have now been completed and, before the end of the month, this matter will be considered by cabinet—no delay, nothing unusual, nothing sinister.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Too late!

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She says now, ‘Too late.’ There was no rotavirus vaccine between 1983 and 1996. I did not hear any hysterical speeches about rotavirus last winter or the winter before. I would like to see a rotavirus campaign for this winter. If we do consider this matter—as I am sure we will before the end of March—and, if the recommendation of the PBAC is accepted by cabinet, it will then be in the hands of the states, as these things normally are. I certainly want to work with the states to get this vaccine out there into the community as quickly as possible. I can give no fairer answer than that.

I do not believe there is anything that any reasonable observer or any fair-minded critic could legitimately hold against this government on the issue of rotavirus or on vaccines generally. Let us not forget that, back in 1996, the federal government spent $13 million on vaccines. In the last financial year, from memory, we spent something like $250 million on vaccines. In the early 1990s, the childhood immunisation rate in this country was 53 per cent; today the childhood immunisation rate is well over 90 per cent.

Let us go through some of the other issues that were raised by the shadow minister for health. I accept that there are spiralling health costs. Health costs go up, just like other costs in our community go up, and obviously no-one likes it. Who is happy when, for argument’s sake, their private health insurance premium goes up 4½ per cent? Of course people are unhappy about that. But I tell you what: they are a lot less unhappy than they were when it was going up by 11 per cent a year on average. If I am such an incompetent health minister because under my stewardship health insurance premiums have gone up by 4½ per cent, what kind of incompetence was there in this parliament when Labor ministers for health saw premiums go up by 11 per cent a year? Fair cop! If members opposite had been able to keep premiums to one per cent, two per cent or three per cent of CPI, and I came in and it was 4½ per cent under me, I would be prepared to stand here and say, ‘Yes, not a very good job.’ But when members opposite had average increases of 11 per cent—I think one year it was over 20 per cent—and this government has kept the average to about five per cent over 13 years, please let us not have the kind of sanctimony that we had from the shadow minister today.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Minister for Workforce Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dr Stone interjecting

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She was talking about the rising costs of visiting a GP and the rising costs of visiting specialists. I accept that the charges of GPs and other doctors have gone up, but they have gone up by no greater a rate than they went up when members opposite were in government.

But I will tell you what the government have done, which the former government never did—and which members opposite do not actually support, even though it helps people who face higher costs—and that is introduce the Medicare safety net. No-one likes to see people paying high costs, particularly for their health care. No-one likes that. And we have done something about it. We have put a safety net in place which, in the calendar year just gone, should have helped about 1½ million Australians. That is a safety net that members opposite are still pledged to take away.

Now that the shadow minister has been in the job for three months and has presumably had a chance to get her head around some of these things, I would like to know: is that still Labor’s position? Certainly it was their position before the last election. Certainly it was always the position of the former shadow minister, now the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, that they would abolish the Medicare safety net. Is it still the position now that the member for Gellibrand is the shadow minister? If it is still her position, what a hide to come into this House and start talking about spiralling health costs, when probably the most important structural change to Medicare since 1984 was put in by this government to help people who face those spiralling health costs, and now Labor want to rip it away.

On dental care: I am not at all happy about the fact that there are some 650,000 Australians currently on public dental waiting lists. I do not like it one little bit. And, yes, I suppose that, if the Keating government scheme which lasted for three or four years were put back in place, some slight dent might be made in those waiting lists. But you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, they did not disappear, and, in many states, as soon as the Keating government put a bit of money into those things which had always been states’ responsibilities, the states took the money back. It comes a bit rich from members opposite to talk constantly about the horrors of the Howard government dental policy, when the Leader of the Opposition—as de facto Premier of Queensland—still had three-year waiting lists for public dental treatment at the very time that the Keating scheme was operating.

I do not say for a second that clearing public dental waiting lists will be easy, just as I do not say for a second that eliminating elective surgery waiting lists would be easy. The states have a hard job. Running public hospitals is hard. Running public dental services is hard. I just think they should do their job. They should do their job, and I do not think the states doing their job is helped by the shadow minister for health saying, ‘It’s not their fault. Everything is the fault of the Howard government.’ I do not believe that there is any real way to end the blame game in this country by blaming everything on the policies of the Howard government.

The shadow minister talked about complete inaction from this government—total inaction from this government—on health. I simply table a speech which goes through some of the things which the government has done since 1996 and, in particular, since October 2003.

Another topic of this MPI is industrial relations. Members opposite get hysterical about the alleged evils of Work Choices. Let me just make it very clear. Since 1996 we have had more jobs, higher pay and fewer strikes—almost two million new jobs, including almost a quarter of a million new jobs since Work Choices was introduced in April last year. Basic award earnings are up 18 per cent in real terms since 1996. I think they only rose by about one per cent in real terms in the previous 13 years. The real wealth per head of Australians has increased by 100 per cent since 1996. Average weekly earnings in this country are up by 25 per cent in real terms since 1996.

I do not say for a second that there are not some people in this country who feel financial pressure. You can double your salary and, if you double your expenditure, you are still under financial pressure. I accept that. But the government’s responsibility is not to stop people spending; the government’s responsibility is to give them the opportunity of earning, and that is precisely what we have done since 1996.

I do not claim to be any great expert in the field of child care, but just for completeness, because I do not want people to think that the government has in any way run away from the topic of this MPI: the spending on childcare benefit has doubled over the life of this government, and the number of places has doubled under this government. I am advised that, in the last eight years of the former Labor government, childcare fees increased by 47 per cent in real terms. In the last 10 years under this government, childcare fees have increased by 22 per cent. Again, no-one likes increases. Unfortunately, in the real world, they are unavoidable, and the fact is that they have been much more moderate under this government than under its predecessor, and people have had much more by way of financial resources to deal with them under this government than under its predecessor. I have tried as best I can to deal soberly and sensibly with the topic of this MPI. I am sorry if question time was a bit thermonuclear, but I think the serious critique has been well and truly answered. (Time expired)

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a delight to be able to second the MPI, moved by the member for Gellibrand, which seeks to shine a spotlight on what is happening for Australian families across this country—a spotlight which the Minister for Health and Ageing seems desperately keen to avoid. Families are under more financial pressure than ever before. Australian families are struggling to make ends meet under the growing weight of record household debt, rising interest rates, pressure at work, rising health costs and reduced family time. For the last six months, as part of Labor’s Family Watch Task Force, Labor MPs and senators have met with families in shopping centres and markets around the country. We have surveyed households in every state and territory. Far from being relaxed and comfortable after a decade of the Howard government, Australian families are increasingly anxious about their household finances. They are also worried about the Howard government’s attack on working conditions and the neglect of skills and training and what that means for their children. Australia’s prosperity depends on the hard work and commitment of Middle Australia, and Middle Australia deserves a government which actually focuses on its needs.

The rising costs of health and child care and the adverse impacts of the government’s industrial relations agenda are placing extreme pressure on families. Family budgets are not just blowing out in one area. The cost of living is rising across the board, whether it be housing repayments or rent, weekly grocery bills, petrol, utility bills, health care, childcare fees and education expenses. All of these cost pressures are having a severe impact on family budgets and family life. It is clear that growing financial pressure on household budgets is influencing critical decisions which families are taking. Parents told Labor’s Family Watch Task Force that financial constraints are denying them the opportunity to make real decisions about the size of their families and about time out of the workforce after childbirth. Middle Australia is working harder than ever before, with longer hours and longer commutes, and second and third jobs are eroding family life.

Parents are worried about the impact of health costs on their ability to ensure that their children get the health and dental care they need. They are also concerned about what the rising cost of education means for their children’s future. Families are being hampered by the complex interaction between the government’s tax and welfare systems, and they are being actively hurt by the government’s industrial relations legislation. Family income is not keeping pace with the increased costs of living, leaving middle- and low-income earners struggling to make ends meet. Many low- and middle-income families have simply been overwhelmed by the growing financial burden. That fact was demonstrated in the report by Catholic Social Services Australia entitled Dropping off the edge, released this week.

The shadow minister for health has outlined how the rising costs of health care and the health system are affecting families. Lack of funding for areas of prevention, combined with increased costs of seeing a GP and accessing medicines, is contributing to preventable hospital admissions in this country. Such admissions place even greater strains on both the hospital systems and families.

Medical and healthcare expenses are the fastest growing cost category for Australian families. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare says that personal health bills are rising at a rate of 6.9 per cent per year, which is double the rate of inflation. At the same time, the ability of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme to deliver affordable medicines is being undermined as the Howard government takes every opportunity to strip funds out of its budget.

We have seen yet again a rise in private health insurance premiums. These rises, coupled with an increase in gap payments, have occurred despite the public rebate and the Howard government’s promise to keep rises under control. The health of children is a major source of anxiety for parents. The last thing parents need when their child is ill is the worry about whether they can afford to pay for treatment.

The level of household debt has skyrocketed in Australia, with average household debt now 125 per cent of disposable income. People are having to spend more money than they are earning; 83½ per cent of all household income is spent on housing. That figure is just in respect of housing which people occupy. The stark reality for working families is that there is no such thing as a small interest rate rise and no such thing as a small mortgage. People have more debts and larger amounts owing. The average home loan is now $300,000. The sheer size of debt, coupled with the government’s inability to keep a lid on inflation, has pushed up interest rates. This means that people are now paying 50 per cent more for their mortgages than they were when Labor was in government.

Despite the rhetoric about lower interest rates, the Howard government is taking 50 per cent more out of the pockets of working Australians just so that they can stay in their own homes. Add to this the vast amounts of consumer debt that each working family is carrying and it will become clear why Australian families are struggling. Total Australian household debt has now reached $1 trillion. That is equivalent to $125,000 for every household. Labor’s Family Watch Task Force was appalled to hear that some families are having to rely on credit drawn at 48 per cent interest in order to make ends meet.

Such massive personal debts create huge tensions within working families and, as shown in Dropping off the edge, often lead to family breakdowns and other social problems. These debt levels are simply too much for many working families. Mortgage repossessions have been skyrocketing since 2003 as working families are pulled under by debt. In Victoria alone there has been a 210 per cent increase in the number of repossessions. This is higher than in the recession period of the early nineties.

Access to secure, appropriate and affordable housing is an essential ingredient of a quality family life. Unfortunately, many families are denied that access. Many families are trapped in a vicious cycle of rising rents for low-standard accommodation as an ever growing number of families are denied access to the benefits of home ownership. Out-of-reach house prices and increasing interest rates, combined with rises in other costs of living, mean home ownership is no longer an achievable goal for many families.

Housing affordability is tied to other costs of living. As working families are having to spend more to meet the climbing costs of child care, health care and education, less money can be put aside for a housing deposit. Tightening rental markets have seen big increases in rent across the country, which has put decent accommodation beyond the reach of many working families. We also have 100,000 homeless Australians on any given night. With $3.2 billion being ripped out of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement over the last 10 years, thousands of Australian families have been denied access to rent assistance and have had their eligibility restricted.

In the area of child care, wherever you go in Australia families want to talk about child care—about the lack of availability, rising costs and the difficulty of finding care for young teenagers. Since 1996 childcare affordability has declined for almost all Australians. Childcare costs have grown three to five times faster than the CPI over each of the past three years and low- and middle-income families are being left behind in the wake of these fee rises. Working Australian families often have little choice but to access child care in order for both parents to work to pay for housing, health costs and the ordinary costs of living. These working Australian families are slapped with childcare bills that eat up their earnings. Many working women across Australia are being punished by the government’s system that makes it unaffordable to work but impossible to stay at home to look after their kids. The government’s own members have referred to the childcare system as ‘a shambles’ and the government’s policy in this area has been an absolute failure in keeping child care affordable for Australian families.

In the area of industrial relations, contrary to the Howard government’s promise that life would be better for women under Australian workplace agreements, the ABS data that we saw yesterday shows that it certainly is not. The Australian Bureau of Statistics released the employee hours and earnings for May 2006. The data indicates that women on Australian workplace agreements are earning less than Australian women on collective agreements. These statistics clearly show that there is a big earnings gap between those women who entered into an AWA before Work Choices, when the no disadvantage test applied, and those on collective agreements. You can hardly imagine what the gap will be now that the no disadvantage test does not apply.

These are just four areas where families are under pressure. The reality for many Australian families is that they are sinking under the growing burden of debt as they simply try to keep up with the basic costs of living. Families are asking why their pay packets are not stretching as far as they used to; why their pay is spent before they actually seem to get it; why they cannot seem to save; and why their debts never seem to go down but the cost of living seems to keep going up. The reality for many families is that child care and health costs, household debt and housing costs are becoming increasingly unaffordable. Australia’s prosperity depends on the hard work and commitment of middle Australia. Middle Australia deserves a government that is going to work for them. (Time expired)

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to join in the debate on this matter of public importance. I remind members of what the MPI is for: it is an opportunity for the Labor Party—the opposition—to raise an issue of importance for that day. As a way of gaining momentum, it is usually preceded in question time by the opposition asking a series of questions on issues relating to that matter of public importance. What we have had today from the opposition shows us that this matter of public of importance is not one that the ALP believes in; rather, it was the member for Gellibrand’s turn to get up and raise an MPI. During question time, the opposition raised no questions on any of the issues the member for Gellibrand spoke about; rather, the opposition went down various rabbit holes on other issues, trying to deflect their possible guilt in what has taken place in Western Australian and its link to Canberra.

It was unfortunate that the member for Gellibrand spent the first seven or eight minutes in her MPI getting personal about the Minister for Health and Ageing. It is very unfortunate that she did that rather than sticking to the substance of the MPI. She made the comment, ‘We don’t want to live in a country where people cannot afford health care.’ Nobody wants to live in a country where people cannot afford health care. One of the things this government has done through its tax cuts, through its rebates, through its Medicare safety net and through the increased ability for people to have a job is provide people with the ability to pay and to earn a living.

But, no, the member for Gellibrand ignores all of that and instead gets very personal about the health minister, saying, ‘What is he doing when he is all sweaty, running in his tracksuit around Parliament House?’ I will give the member for Gellibrand a hint. Just ask the member for Parramatta and the member for Oxley what the minister does as a way of making a contribution. Not only has the minister, in his portfolio, responded from a policy perspective; he has also responded with conviction by using his feet, his muscles and his energy to help those who need support. I urge the member for Gellibrand to put on her tracksuit and in April join the member for Oxley, the member for Parramatta and members on this side of the House in a charity ride which takes place every year. Over the last nine years, the minister has raised over $1 million through his Pollie Pedal ride. Over $1 million has been raised by the minister through his efforts in this charity ride, and most of it has gone to the very issue that the member for Gellibrand says the minister has no concern about—diabetes.

Member for Gellibrand, I look forward to your lycras, your bike and you pumping out those kilometres between Brisbane and Sydney this year. No doubt if you, as the shadow minister for health, participated with the minister for health in riding down the highway between Brisbane and Sydney, we would raise a lot of money. Guess where that money goes? It goes to the Millennium Foundation for medical research. The minister for health is a man who has delivered not only on policy but also as an individual. To see that he has delivered on policy, we only need to look at the response on Gardasil and on Herceptin for breast cancer; the rotavirus is being considered. When we look at the child immunisation rates, we see that the number of children who are now immunised has increased from 50 per cent to 90 per cent. In the last 24 hours, the minister for health made an announcement that a new centre for gynaecological cancers will be established. This is a minister who has responded in all sorts of ways.

Let us also go to the substance of the MPI: the cost of living pressures facing working families. I say to the member for Ballarat and the member for Gellibrand that one of the things that Australian families can do today which they were not able to do prior to 1996 is have a job to be able to pay for the cost of living. Most people are experiencing interest rates which are far lower than the rates the ALP left us with back in 1990s. It was not a matter then of housing affordability being beyond the reach of most Australians—one of the subjects of the member for Ballarat’s contribution. Back then, interest rates were such that housing affordability was beyond the reach of all Australians. We have seen interest rates come down to levels that the ALP could only dream of ever achieving—and of course they will not, because they do not have the ability to manage an economy which creates such sustained increases in wages and jobs growth and which makes sure that people have the ability to participate in the workforce.

The facts are that since March last year, when Work Choices came in, which those on the other side thought was going to be the end of the family, we have seen over 241,000 new jobs created. Most of those have been full-time jobs and over 100,000 have been jobs for women, particularly those who have returned to the workforce. These are people who can now participate in Australian society in a real way and make a contribution to providing bread and a meal for their families when they go home.

Wages have increased by somewhere around 18 per cent since 1996. The earnings of employees have also gone up in real terms since Work Choices came in. The member for Ballarat was going on about the ABS figures from yesterday. I am not sure whether we are on the same page. The figures I have here are from May 2006—which, remember, is only a couple of months after Work Choices came in; yet those on the other side like to make out that it is for the full year. Those ABS employee earning hours survey figures show that full-time employees under registered individual agreements such as AWAs earn on average $511 per week more than award wages. Part-time employees—and we know most part-time employees tend to be females who are re-entering the workforce after an absence from it—under registered individual agreements earn on average $81.70 per week more than award wages. And all employees under collective agreements earn on average $404 more than employees on award wages. So, far from the doom and gloom that they predicted—and are now trying to say has actually come to pass—the record is one of growth in employment and also increased ability to earn a wage which is commensurate with someone’s contribution to the workforce and which is increasing as we go.

On a number of fronts this MPI is discredited. The private health insurance rebate and the Medicare safety net, which the minister has certainly gone through at length, are there to help address the pressures that are faced by working families. Yet what is the Labor Party’s response? We still do not know whether or not they are going to maintain the rebate on private health insurance. They criticised last week’s announcement of a 4½ per cent increase in premiums, but until they come out and state what their policy is we have to assume it is the previous policy that they had, which was to get rid of the private health insurance rebate completely.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is completely misrepresenting the position of the Labor Party, which has clearly been stated in support of the 30 per cent rebate.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order.

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So we have a party here that does not know what its policies are, whether it be assisting people into the workforce—

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You mean you don’t know what our policies are!

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Gellibrand has already been warned and I will not hesitate to throw her out.

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They have no idea whether or not they are going to support the Medicare safety net. With respect to child care, which is the other part of their argument here, they have not acknowledged the fact that under the coalition we have seen real fees increase by 22 per cent in the last 10 years versus 47 per cent in the eight years they were in power. (Time expired)

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great honour to be speaking about this issue and following the member for Deakin on this matter about the cost of living. In listening to the member for Deakin and the achievements of the government that he has listed, one would think that we are living in a utopia, that in the outer suburbs of Melbourne, which he is part of, there is boundless prosperity, that there are no cost-of-living constraints, that people can wander into doctors’ surgeries without having to worry about bulk-billing, that people do not have a care about industrial relations and that child care is fine—that it is a perfect world.

But it is interesting, in their perfect world, in the suburbs and the electorate that I represent, that last year, when petrol prices were about $1.30 a litre, inflation was about four per cent and we had just come off another interest rate rise, I distributed a survey to my constituents asking for their views about the cost of living, their concerns with industrial relations, their hopes and fears for the future and issues that concerned them. The interesting thing about this utopia—listening to the member for Deakin—that may help the member for Deakin in terms of facts and figures, was that there was a 22 per cent response rate; unheard of in outer suburban areas. Do you know what the interesting things that they raised were? Their main concerns were job security and cost of living. In fact, they were very angry. So in this utopia that you talk about, Member for Deakin, the No. 1 concern that they had as a consequence of the introduction of the Work Choices legislation was job security. Why would that be, in utopia?

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Barresi interjecting

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, exactly. So that large number of people living in that happy little utopia were basically worried about job security. I wonder why that would be. They were worried about their capacity to pay off their homes. In fact, some of them were worried about being able to pay school fees or for car registration. So in this perfect world that I have just listened to with the contribution from the member for Deakin we had people in January this year coming into my office trying to work out where they could get money to pay for book fees for their students. They were basically saying that they could not afford to pay doctors’ bills, that they could not afford to run their second family car anymore and that their houses were going to be repossessed—in this perfect world! So we are saying there are two worlds: we have the world of the member for Deakin and the government, and we have the real world reflected in the survey results that I have received. I know which world I believe in.

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Barresi interjecting

Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Deakin, I do not know which world you are in, mate, but it is not the real world. The cost of living and its impact are eloquently summarised by an essay called ‘Divided nations: cracks in the veneer’, which talks about a gentleman who lives in an outer suburban area. It says:

He lives with his family in Hoppers Crossing, in the outer tract of Melbourne’s rapidly expanding western growth corridor. It’s a place like many on the fringes of Australia’s cities, where hopeful households have flocked in recent years chasing the promise of a better life enriched by the Australian dream of home ownership.

But [this gentleman’s] dream is souring. Escalating petrol prices and mortgage interest rates have pushed him to take on a second job to keep his family’s budget in the black. His edgy neighbours are slashing their spending to make ends meet. Holidays, entertainment, new appliances and health insurance have all been cut. “It’s just getting so hard,” he told the Herald Sun in May. “They say we live in the lucky country but that’s crap when people have to live like this.”

So I do not know what the member for Deakin thinks about that; that is obviously not the real world! I wonder what they would make of the price of petrol. On Monday morning, on 28 February, unleaded prices at service stations in my electorate were between $1.08 and $1.12 and all of a sudden, that very same morning, they jumped up to $1.21.6 or $1.22.9. For what reason? Why does the government just sit idly by when that happens, particularly when so many of my constituents are reliant upon cars?

We have spoken about the increase in private health insurance, and when you look emergency relief providers you see that their offices are being flooded by people who are seeking financial support and counselling because of the difficulties of the increased cost of living.

So we have two worlds: we have the world of the member for Deakin—the utopia he and the government have put forward—and we have the real world. It is about time that we actually reflected the concerns of people struggling with the costs of living, struggling to pay for child care, worried about their jobs, worried about their futures and worrying about not being able to take out private health insurance. Kick this mob out of government. (Time expired)

Dave Tollner (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I look at the MPI today and I see it is about pressure facing working families. I suppose we are finally getting an acknowledgement from the other side that there are people out there working. It certainly was different some time ago when the Labor Party were in office in Australia, when we had a million unemployed people on the dole queues. That situation has turned around in a big way thanks to the policies of the Howard government. We have a situation now in Australia where we have record low unemployment and record wages growth. As the member for Deakin said, wages have grown by 18 per cent in real terms under this government, whereas after 13 years of Labor government wages grew by something around one per cent. We also have the lowest rate of strikes since records have been kept. That shows that there are working families out there.

A couple of weeks ago I had an interesting visit to my electorate. Sharan Burrow of the ACTU decided that she was going to turn up there and campaign heavily against the Work Choices legislation. Ms Burrow turned up at the front of my office with half a dozen or a dozen or so protestors, screaming abuse at my window. I thought I should go out and see what her concerns were, so I went and asked Ms Burrow what her problems were. She said she did not like this Work Choices legislation. She said it was terrible. At the time, it was only the day after unemployment figures were announced in the Northern Territory. We had the Northern Territory Labor Treasurer trumpeting the fact that unemployment had fallen to two per cent in the Northern Territory. It had fallen to two per cent from 6.4 per cent in February the previous year, immediately prior to the introduction of Work Choices. I said to Ms Burrow that the reason we had had such a great drop in unemployment in the Northern Territory was that business was embracing Work Choices and was employing more people as a result.

Only on Tuesday, the Sensis small business index released their report, and what they said about the Northern Territory was that it was a little bit different from the rest of the country. They said:

Support among SMEs—

that is, small to medium enterprises—

for the Federal Government recorded a further marginal rise during the quarter and has now been net positive for nine out of the last 10 quarters, with the Federal Government being the most supported government in Australia by SMEs.

…     …         …

The strongest support for the Federal Government’s policies occurred in the Northern Territory, where businesses recorded a positive 23 per cent net balance.

They go on to say:

Once again, the Federal Government’s industrial relations policies were by far the main reason SMEs gave for believing the Federal Government was trying to support small business.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this discussion has now expired.