Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Why is it important to make funding available for the Commonwealth Dental Health Program?

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

I thank the member for Hindmarsh for his question. He has a longstanding interest, representing, I think, one of the oldest electorates in the country. He is acutely aware that there are many thousands of pensioners across the country who cannot get access to dental care and who will not be able to get access to dental care if the Liberal Party continues to oppose dental measures in the Senate.

The Labor government wants to deliver a Commonwealth Dental Health Program which would put $290 million into public dental services. We on this side of the House are well aware—and I would have thought some on the other side would be aware—that those public dental services are provided to the most vulnerable in our community. They are for people who otherwise would not be able to afford dental care. I remind those in the opposition that there are 6.6 million concession card holders. Of those, 4.3 million are pensioners and their dependants. If, however, the new Leader of the Opposition continues to direct his senators in the other place to vote against our changes in dental care, we will not be able to provide the Commonwealth dental scheme. We made it clear before the election that our more targeted program would replace the previous government’s program. We will not be able to provide this program if the Senate continues to oppose those measures. That was the choice that was necessary for us to be able to maintain our surplus, and that is the choice now facing the Senate. I would particularly like to make that choice clear for the new Leader of the Opposition.

Under Labor’s program, Western Australians would receive 35 times more funding than they would have received under the Liberal scheme. Under Labor’s program, South Australians will receive 10 times more funding than they did under the previous government’s scheme. Queenslanders will receive 11 times more funding. Victorians will receive 3½ times more funding. And, wait for it, the Northern Territory will receive 174 times more than under the previous program. Under the Liberal scheme, a multimillionaire with a chronic disease could get help, but a pensioner with a toothache could not. The Liberals wanted to avoid making a choice. They want our scheme and their scheme. That is just not possible.

I want to again highlight this for the new Leader of the Opposition. Last week on Meet the Press on another issue, when the Manager of Opposition Business was pretending that the Liberal Party supported tax relief—just not the Labor government’s tax relief, it seems—Steve Lewis said to the Manager of Opposition Business: ‘You can’t have it both ways.’ And do you know what the Manager of Opposition Business said? ‘Actually, we can.’ That is the problem with the Liberals—they want everything both ways. They want our scheme and they want their scheme. They do not want to make difficult choices. We have to make difficult choices. It is clear that the Liberal Party under previous leadership would not make those choices. This is an opportunity for the new leader to show that he is able to make a choice. The rest of his team cannot. Are you going to, Malcolm?

Chris Pearce (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would you please ask the minister to address her remarks to the title of the office holders, please?

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Has the minister concluded her answer?

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

Yes.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will not invite her to do that, but I will remind her that she is obliged to refer to members by their titles.