My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister explain to the House the lasting health benefits of the Commonwealth’s proposal to create a Commonwealth-funded community controlled hospital at the Mersey in Latrobe in Tasmania? Are there any alternative policies, and what is the government’s response?

I am delighted to follow the Minister for Ageing and inform the House of more good news from the Howard government. I want to thank the member for Braddon for his question, and I want to again congratulate him on his ceaseless advocacy for the people of north-west Tasmania. Let me make it very clear that the only government with a proper plan for health services in north-west Tasmania is the federal government. The Tasmanian government has a big, fat pile of paper but it is not a plan, because there are no dollars associated with it. Without dollars involved, it is nothing but a wish list.

The Commonwealth’s plan has three essential elements. The Commonwealth will fund the hospital to the tune of $45 million a year, the community will control the hospital, and the hospital will deliver the same range of services that were safely and effectively delivered at the Mersey hospital for many years before the Tasmanian Labor government began the downgrade. This is a good model for public hospitals. It ends the blame game, because just one level of government pays the bills, and it cuts the bureaucracy, because management decisions are made locally and not at head office. The federal government is offering to permanently relieve the state government of responsibility for Mersey hospital. This gives the state government up to $45 million a year extra to spend on health services at Burnie and Launceston hospitals. Woe betide any state government that wilfully refuses a $45 million a year free gift to north-west Tasmania out of sheer bloody-mindedness and hurt pride.

We have bizarre behaviour from the state government. What about the Leader of the Opposition? Yesterday the Treasurer said that the Leader of the Opposition was desperately trying to be a Liberal. With respect, no Liberal would be such a fake. Yesterday at a press conference he denounced the Mersey decision as absolutely rotten and then he said he would not oppose it. This is how the journalist Matt Price described the Leader of the Opposition’s me too’ism. He said:

Rudd agreed it was too early not to agree with Howard on the Mersey, so he agreed instead to agree with the intervention until it was agreed he might agree to disagree.

This is the kind of verbal sludge that we constantly get from the Leader of the Opposition. Let me say this: if he is not willing to lead, he is not ready to govern, and the last thing the Australian people want is a phoney in the Lodge.

My question is also to the Minister for Health and Ageing. I refer to the statement by Dr Bert Shugg, the Acting Director of the Women and Children’s Services at North West Regional Hospital, after his meeting with the minister on Tuesday, that he was concerned that women and children were at the bottom of the agenda under the Prime Minister’s Mersey takeover plan, and also that he ‘can’t understand’ how the government will ensure the range of services and that ‘there has yet been no consultation at all with the obstetric and paediatric staff’. Minister, what specific assurances have you given to obstetric and paediatric staff that services for women and children will not be affected by your plan to take over a state hospital?

I remind the member for Gellibrand that the use of the word ‘you’ is not to be encouraged.

The shadow minister complains that there had not been consultations with clinical staff at Burnie Hospital. I will tell the shadow minister why there have been no consultations with clinicians at Burnie Hospital. It is because the state government will not allow it. The Tasmanian state government has threatened clinicians with the loss of their jobs if they engage—

Ms Roxon interjecting

Order! The member for Gellibrand has asked the question.

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. This—

The member for Gellibrand will resume her seat. The minister is entirely in order. I call the Minister for Health and Ageing.

It gets crazier and crazier from the member for Gellibrand. On the one hand she says that there were no consultations and the next minute she says, ‘I met with them.’ Come on, Mr Speaker. She has got to—

Order! The minister will resume his seat. The level of interjects is far too high. The minister has been asked a serious question.

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is obvious that the minister did not hear the question. I am quite happy to ask it again if he would like me to.

I listened carefully to the question. The minister is entirely in order.

First of all, she says that there have been no consultations. I point out that consultations have been prohibited by the state government.

Ms Roxon interjecting

And then she says, ‘I have actually met with this guy.’ She cannot have it both ways.

Ms Roxon interjecting

Order! The member for Gellibrand is warned!

I say to the Leader of the Opposition, ‘If you want the opposition to be taken seriously on health, put a serious person in as health shadow minister.’

Has the minister completed his answer?

Yes.

I say to the minister, as I have just said to the member for Gellibrand, that he should not be using the word ‘you’ in the context that he was.