Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Nash. I refer to Professor Owler, President of the Australian Medical Association, who says that, as a result of the Abbott-Turnbull government's $57 billion cut to hospital funding, patients will face longer waiting lists for vital health care, and some may miss out altogether. Is the Australian Medical Association correct?

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Minister for Rural Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I do not agree with the President of the AMA, Brian Owler, in this instance. Can I say it is this government that is actually investing in health better than the previous Labor government did, and I say that with a great sense of conviction, because indeed funding for hospitals is going to increase year on year over the forward estimates. That might be something those opposite have not been prepared to accept, but it has increased. Indeed, funding for public health increases by around 21.5 per cent, or $3.3 billion over the next four years. So, rather than going backwards, this government is taking health spending, in terms of hospitals, forward.

Can I say that in my home state of New South Wales we are seeing a total increase in funding of 22.7 per cent. I think in anybody's calculations that is an increase, not a decrease. On this side of the chamber, we, in a measured and responsible way, deal with the economic decisions that governments have to take, unlike those opposite, who believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden and who are happy to promise funding in the years down the track, on the never-never. It is 'fairies at the bottom of the garden' funding. This side of the chamber is going to make sure that we make sensible economic decisions, and funding for hospitals is increasing.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I refer again to the Australian Medical Association, which says:

… Indigenous people will be some of the worst affected by these cuts.

If the Government is truly committed to closing the gap, then it needs to properly fund … hospitals.

Is the Australian Medical Association correct?

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Minister for Rural Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With the greatest respect, I do not agree with Mr Owler. He is, of course, entitled to his view, but I do not necessarily always agree with the positions that he puts forward. Firstly, as I have stated, funding to hospitals is going to increase, and that is a clear fact. When it comes to Indigenous health, I do not think there has been a government over a significant period of time that is more committed to Indigenous people and to Indigenous health funding—$3.3 billion over the next four years when it comes to primary health and, indeed, $1.4 billion to primary care across the community-controlled health organisations. That is a significant commitment, and I worked very closely with the sector to ensure that together we can improve health outcomes for Indigenous people.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I refer again to the Australian Medical Association, which says that as a result of these cuts patients will 'languish on elective surgery waiting lists for long periods' for 'procedures to deal with painful, disabling conditions, cancers, life-threatening conditions'. How many Australian patients will be worse off as a result of the Abbott-Turnbull government's $57 billion cuts to hospitals?

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Minister for Rural Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can only assume that those opposite were not prepared to listen to the answers I have been giving to the questions. If the senator had been listening, she would have realised that funding to hospitals is increasing. So the premise of the senator's question is indeed incorrect.

This side of the chamber is absolutely committed to improving health outcomes for all Australians. We are going to do that through sensible economic management, making sure that we make decisions, when it comes to health, that are going to provide better health outcomes in a way that is sustainable for this country, unlike those opposite, who are quite happy to promise money on the never-never and have no policy cut-through and no thought-through policies when it comes to health—or any other area when it comes to that.