2007-09-18 41 1 10 REPS 0 0 2007-09-18 The SPEAKER (Hon. David Hawker) took the chair at 2 pm and read prayers. 1 14:01:00 Questions Without Notice 1 14:01:00 1 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 Mr RUDD —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister’s axing of the Commonwealth Dental Health Program in 1996, which has resulted in 650,000 Australians now waiting for public dental care. I also refer to Labor’s $290 million plan announced today to fund up to— Government members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. That question is misleading the House. Paul Keating had a four-year— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for O’Connor will resume his seat. SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for O’Connor will resume his seat or I will deal with him. The Leader of the Opposition has the call. He will begin his question again. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Thanks, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister’s axing of the Commonwealth Dental Health Program in 1996, which has resulted in 650,000 Australians now waiting for public dental— Government members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Members on my right! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Members on my right will allow a question to be asked without the background. I call the Leader of the Opposition. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister’s axing of the Commonwealth Dental Health Program in 1996, which has resulted— Government members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. GK6 Kelly, Jackie, MP Miss Jackie Kelly —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is misleading the House. It is a point of parliamentary record— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member will resume her seat. That is a frivolous point of order, and I warn the member for Lindsay. The Leader of the Opposition has the call, and all members will allow that course to proceed without all this interruption. 84T Haase, Barry, MP Mr Haase —Tell the truth! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Kalgoorlie is warned! 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I refer to the Prime Minister’s axing of the Commonwealth dental health care program in 1996, which has resulted in 650,000 Australians— Government members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition is not entitled to mislead the House by way of a question. There was no axing of a scheme. It was a time limited scheme and it expired. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition has barely begun to ask his question. He will be given the opportunity to ask his question and then I will consider it. I call the Leader of the Opposition. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I refer again to the Prime Minister’s axing of the Commonwealth dental health care program in 1996, which has resulted in 650,000 Australians now waiting for public dental care. I also refer to Labor’s $290 million plan announced today to fund up to one million dental consultations for Australian working families. Why, after 11 years in office, does the Prime Minister continue to preside over a dental crisis which sees 650,000 Australians on waiting lists? Will he now support Labor’s plan to fix it? Government members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The last part of that question is in order. I call the Prime Minister. 2 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —Mr Speaker, in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, I refute, reject and repudiate his claim about the axing. I also deny absolutely that the long waiting lists are the fault of my government. They are the fault of state governments. Ever since the Leader of the Opposition— Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call and the Prime Minister will be heard. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —Ever since the member for Griffith assumed his current position, he has been talking about ending the blame game. His definition of the blame game is that it is okay to blame the Commonwealth but never the states, because they are all Labor. So when he talks about ending the blame game, what he is really saying is: ‘Never attack a Labor government, but it is perfectly okay to attack a federal Liberal government.’ If he imagines that by using that kind of invocation I am going to be restrained from legitimately pointing out the failures of eight state and territory Labor administrations around this country, he has got another think coming. Public dental health has from time immemorial been a responsibility of the states. The 600,000 people on the waiting lists are the fault of the state governments. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Members on my left! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —The Leader of the Opposition asked me whether we will pick up Labor’s plan. The answer is no because we have a better plan than Labor has, and that is the plan that was announced in the budget. Of course, what the Leader of the Opposition did not acknowledge in his question is that his plan will cost $290 million and that he will fund it through the abolition of a coalition plan worth $384 million. In other words, he is going to rip $100 million out of dental care. What a phoney! 2 2 14:08:00 Tollner, David, MP 00AN4 Solomon CLP 1 Mr TOLLNER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Would the minister advise the House of the latest developments in the government’s intervention in the Northern Territory to combat the abuse revealed in the report entitled Little children are sacred? 2 Brough, Mal, MP 2K6 Longman LP Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs 1 Mr BROUGH —I thank the member for his question. Today the Commonwealth government, the Howard government, gave an unequivocal guarantee to the people of the Northern Territory of our commitment to do all that we can to protect the Indigenous children of the Northern Territory by committing to a $1.33 billion program over the next four years to change the circumstances in which they currently live and give them a brighter and safer future. There are five elements to this plan that the Howard government is totally committed to. First of all, there is policing. There is simply no substitute for giving people security in knowing that there are adequate numbers of police in their midst. The women in particular in the Northern Territory have said long and loud to magistrate Dr Sue Gordon, who is chairing our task force, since she has been up there that nothing else will suffice other than giving them adequate police protection. To that end the Prime Minister has announced that the Commonwealth, beyond this initial phase in which we currently have AFP and Queensland police now on the ground, will provide 66 Australian Federal Police so that we can give a more permanent policing solution to these communities. They will work with the Northern Territory government but they will provide policing and security on the ground in the communities where needed. I want to take this opportunity to thank the AFP, who are doing a great job up there now, and the Queensland police who recently deployed. I would ask that the New South Wales, Tasmanian, Victorian and South Australian governments hasten the deployment of their own forces in the interests of these children. Those forces are desperately needed. In relation to housing, the Commonwealth government is making the single largest expenditure of additional money for housing to the Northern Territory to change once and for all the circumstances in which these children and families grow up. It is simply not good enough that people grow up in what cannot be described as anything other than abject squalor. We are committing $800 million to the Northern Territory alone so that people can be provided not just enough homes but the right types of homes. We are looking at involving local Indigenous people in all aspects of the housing construction. First of all, those people who destroy their own homes will be part of rebuilding their own homes, people who are currently renting will have the opportunity to buy and people who are not paying rent at the moment will be expected to do so under new circumstances in which everyone will be treated the same. This is a growth from $279 million to some $800 million from the Commonwealth government. In the area of jobs, the Commonwealth government has abolished CDEP but has replaced it with $90 million over the next three years to convert what were ‘pretend jobs’, CDEP jobs, into real jobs—jobs where people in those communities will have respect and where they will be able to do such things as we have now rolled out in Finke and Imanpa: home and community care workers, child-care workers, night patrolmen and municipal services. In addition, we are working with the NT government on a dollar-for-dollar basis to say, ‘We will put an additional $30 million on the table if the NT matches it dollar for dollar and takes those NT government services and provides real job opportunities for Indigenous people.’ We are talking about 2,000 jobs. In relation to education, the Chief Minister told the Prime Minister and me just recently that there are some 2,000 school-age Aboriginal children in the NT who have never been enrolled in school. What they have now committed to, as they should, is ensuring that there are classrooms, books, desks and teachers for each of those students, and we will hold them to account in this matter. We cannot set some arbitrary figure; we must ensure that every Australian child has the opportunity for an education—English, numeracy and literacy—and that is what we are determined to do. Turning now to the area of health, in my joint announcement today with the Minister for Health and Ageing, he announced an additional $100 million for more doctors, nurses, allied health professionals and specialist services as part of this emergency response. It is not good enough for us to simply acknowledge that there are ear, nose and throat problems, skin problems and nutritional problems. We as the Howard government are committed to recruiting and supporting the doctors and the allied specialists so that we overcome these problems and give these children the sort of future they deserve. The people of the Northern Territory, and the Australian population in general, can be assured that this is an unequivocal commitment from the Howard government. There is no two bob each way, no saying one thing to one group of Australians and something else to others. It is not sending mixed messages about things such as cultural law. A government member—No inquiries. 2K6 Brough, Mal, MP Mr BROUGH —We are determined, as just mentioned by one of my colleagues, to not have an inquiry to look into it. We are committed to action on behalf of securing the future, the health, the wellbeing and the success of Aboriginal communities throughout the Territory. 4 4 14:14:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —I refer to my previous question to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister’s rejection of the premise of that question, which was that he had axed the Commonwealth Dental Health Program in 1996, which has resulted in 650,000 Australians now waiting for public dental care. I refer to the government’s budget speech of 1996-97, which states: As waiting times for public dental health services have now been reduced, funding for the Commonwealth Dental program will cease from 1 January 1997, saving $399 million over 4 years. Prime Minister, on what basis do you contend that the government did not abolish the Commonwealth dental program? 4 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —The program was introduced by the Keating government to reduce the waiting lists; the waiting lists were reduced and therefore the program had served its purpose. I think what this side of the House would like to know is: what has the Leader of the Opposition done with the missing $100 million? Last night this measure was debated in the House—and be it recorded that the Labor Party voted against a measure providing $384.6 million over four years— 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms Hall interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Shortland! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —to assist about 200,000 Australians who are amongst the sickest and most needy in our community, to provide $4,250 worth— 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms Hall interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Shortland is warned! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —of Medicare funded dental treatment at a dentist every two years to people with chronic and complex conditions like diabetes, heart disease or cancer who are referred by their GP to a dentist under a care plan. It includes dental assessments, preventative services, extractions, fillings and other restorative work and dentures. It was estimated to cost $384 million over four years. That program is due to start in a few weeks time, and the Labor Party have promised to abolish it and they are going to rip almost $100 million out of dental care for older Australians. They are not going to replace it with their program; they are going to give $290 million to the states. If you look at the way in which public health is managed in this country, why would anybody give Morris Iemma or Anna Bligh or what’s-his-name, John Brumby—they change so fast these days I lose track—or Mike Rann, and so it goes on, Commonwealth dollars and take those dollars away from Australians in need of dental assistance? Here is another example of how the Leader of the Opposition operates. He says: ‘We won’t have a program—that’s too hard. We’ll abolish our program. We’ll take $100 million out of it and we’ll hand $290 million to the states.’ Let me say: that is no way to run this country. It is no way to run this country to abolish a Commonwealth program, take $100 million along the way and then hand $290 million to the states with no guarantee that the states will spend the money wisely, with no guarantee that waiting lists will be reduced and with no guarantee that the dental health of older Australians will be improved. I think it is a disgrace that the Labor Party voted against a program that is going to bring improved dental health to hundreds of thousands of older Australians, and the Labor Party stands condemned for such a policy. 5 5 14:18:00 Broadbent, Russell, MP MT4 McMillan LP 1 Mr BROADBENT —My question is to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the House how the government’s ongoing strong economic management is helping to ensure Australia’s future prosperity? Further, Prime Minister, what is the government’s vision for Australia’s economic future and is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative plans? 5 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I thank the member for McMillan for that question. I note in passing that in 1996 the unemployment rate in the electorate of McMillan was 7.7 per cent; in March of 2007 the unemployment rate in McMillan had fallen to 4.3 per cent. I also note in passing that the honourable member’s Labor opponent in the forthcoming election is somebody who balances her current career as an organiser with the shop assistants union with being a heritage officer with the Labor Party. At least there is no conflict of interest in relation to that, but it is typical that so many people who are union officials are candidates for the Australian Labor Party. The member for McMillan asked me: how has our economic policy benefited the Australian economy? The benefits to the Australian economy are strong and evident: the lowest unemployment level in 33 years; the very strong financial position; the esteem and the regard in which this country is held around the world; the capacity of the Australian economy to withstand international economic shocks—and that has been demonstrated on a number of occasions over the last 10 years. What we have in September 2007 is a situation where the best years of Australia will be ahead of this country if we make wise decisions not only about our governments but also about the sorts of policies that ought to be introduced into the future and the way in which we use our current prosperity. The way in which to guarantee that the years ahead of us will be better than the years that have passed is to embrace a government and an approach that are willing to put substance in place of spin and process. If there is one thing that distinguishes this government from the opposition it is our capacity to actually make decisions and to implement them. The member for McMillan asked me about alternative plans. I have in my spare time been doing a little research, thumbing through the files, and I have come across the fact that the Labor Party has announced that it will establish 67 new departments, ministries, commissions, task forces, councils and offices. In case you think I am exaggerating, I will give you some of the detail. There are going to be five in the Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs portfolio. There are going to be four in the Department of Education, Science and Training. There are going to be six in the Department of Health and Ageing. There are going to be five in the Prime Minister’s department. There are going to be four—Joe, you do not escape—in the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations. For the man sitting next to Joe, Ian Macfarlane, the Industry, Tourism and Resources portfolio is going to have 10. There are going to be three in the Transport and Regional Services portfolio and there are going to be 11 in the Treasury portfolio. There is going to be one in the Defence portfolio, five in Foreign Affairs and Trade, five in the Environment and Water Resources, one in Immigration and Citizenship, two in the Attorney-General’s portfolio, one in the communications portfolio and one in Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. They are going to establish a whole-of-government body called ‘Infrastructure Australia’ and they are going to establish a coast-guard—or a ‘coastguide’, as it was so appropriately called by the foreign minister. Of course, they are going to have a new department of homeland security, which I have to record has been an abysmal failure in the United States. Of course, it is the American example. They keep saying that I am too close to the Yanks but they keep copying the Americans when they want to announce a new portfolio. In addition to that, the Labor Party has announced that, if elected to government, it will establish 96 separate reviews, audits, inquiries and investigations. That is in addition to the 67 new agencies and departments. There will be six in Employment, two in the Environment, 11 in Defence, two in Veterans’ Affairs, nine in Industry, two in Agriculture, two in Finance, six in Transport, nine in the Treasury, one in Education, four in Health, seven in Families and Community Services, 10 in the Attorney-General’s, nine in Foreign Affairs, nine in Immigration and 12 in Communications, IT and the Arts—including, might I say, 11 in the arts area announced in one go by the member for Kingsford Smith over one weekend. That was probably the weekend he was not allowed to go to Tasmania, when the environment policy was being announced! Then of course there is going to be an omnibus review of federal-state relations. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: that is not how you govern a country. I was reminded in a discussion that I had with the Treasurer a few moments ago that, when we redesigned the Australian taxation system, we did not ask a committee to tell us how to do it. The committee comprised me, the Treasurer, the finance minister, the head of the Treasury and senior officials in the Taxation Office and the Treasury. Day after day, week after week, month after month, we sat in the cabinet room and we made the decisions, we restructured the Australian taxation system, because we happen to take the view that, if you are elected to government, it is the responsibility of the ministers, and not others, to make the decisions about the future of our nation. 6 Distinguished Visitors 6 14:25:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Gordon Bilney, a former minister and member for Kingston. On behalf of the House, I extend him a very warm welcome. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 6 Questions Without Notice 6 6 14:25:00 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr HOWARD —I table a list of the 67 bodies and 96 reviews and inquiries to which I referred in my last answer. I want to give the complete, detailed list. 6 6 14:26:00 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP 0 Ms ROXON —My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, can you inform the parliament why the government’s chronic disease dental program has, over the past three years, assisted only 14 preschoolers across the entire country and only one child under five in Queensland? Prime Minister, why do you prefer this hopeless program, which helps only a handful of children rather than assisting the up to 650,000 people languishing on the waiting lists and the up to one million Australians who could benefit from Labor’s plan? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Before I call the minister, I remind the member for Gellibrand that she should not use the word ‘you’ in a question. 7 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr ABBOTT —I can inform the member for Gellibrand that there were some flaws in the scheme as it was originally put forward; that is why we have completely restructured it. The problem with the scheme as it was originally put into place was that it only funded consultations. The scheme as it has been revised will fund no fewer than 450 separate dental procedures. The difference between our scheme and Labor’s scheme is that our scheme covers everything; Labor’s scheme only covers consultations. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms Roxon —Mr Speaker, I was wondering if you could ask the minister to table the changed eligibility rules that he seems to believe exist. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —If the member for Gellibrand wishes to raise another question, she will do so at the appropriate time. 7 7 14:27:00 Hardgrave, Gary, MP CK6 Moreton LP 1 Mr HARDGRAVE —My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister update the House on how the government is boosting dental services through Medicare? Opposition members interjecting— CK6 Hardgrave, Gary, MP Mr HARDGRAVE —There are a lot of villages looking for idiots. Is the minister aware of any alternative policy responses, and what is the government’s response to those? 7 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr ABBOTT —I thank the member for Moreton for his question and I certainly appreciate his concerns about the dental clinic at the Queen Elizabeth hospital in his electorate. That dental clinic was all but shut when the Leader of the Opposition was the Director-General of the Cabinet Office in Queensland. I am confident that the member for Moreton’s concerns are not shared by the Labor candidate in Moreton, a former union official who is almost certain to be, as the Leader of the Opposition is, a patsy for the ACTU and a patsy for the state Premier. Let me inform the House, for those members who are not aware of it, that legislation is currently going through this parliament to give people with serious dental problems up to $4,250 worth of Medicare funded dental treatment, in a $385 million dental plan that will cover some 450 specific dental items. This is the best news that people with dental problems have had in many a long year, yet I regret to say that the member for Gellibrand got up in this House last night and said that Labor would oppose it. This is a $385 million plan which will start in just a few weeks and Labor want to stop it. Labor want to stop $385 million of dental treatment starting almost immediately. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms Roxon interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Gellibrand! EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —Today, the member for Gellibrand, along with the Leader of the Opposition, launched what she said is Labor’s dental policy, but it was not today’s dental policy. What she actually did was relaunch the Keating dental scheme of the mid-1990s, which helped state governments much more than it helped dental patients. This government has a $385 million plan; Labor have just a $290 million plan. Every dollar of this government’s plan will be spent on services; much of Labor’s money will be spent on state public servants. The government’s scheme covers some 450 separate dental items and Labor’s scheme will cover just one thing—consultations. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms Roxon —One child in Queensland! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Gellibrand is warned! EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —In fact, Labor has been telling us for the last three years that any scheme that just covers consultations does not work, and they have not even learnt from their own critique. In fact, the member for Gellibrand went so far as to mislead the House last night. I do not say she did it deliberately but she certainly misled the House, because she said that by abolishing this scheme she would part fund Labor’s dental scheme. Well, $385 million more than funds $290 million, and I want to know: where is the missing $100 million that Labor obviously wants to rip out of dental services? The government’s proposal has been on the table since May. You would think Labor would have tried to trump the government’s proposal. Any serious opposition does not come in with a smaller scheme; it comes in with a bigger scheme, but the proposal announced today involves less money and fewer services and lasts for a shorter time. I make this prediction very confidently: Labor’s decision to vote against $385 million worth of new dental funding will come to be seen as just as silly as the former Leader of the Opposition’s decision to vote against tax cuts. Voting against dental treatments is as silly, as perverse and as politically counterproductive as voting against tax cuts. That is what Labor are doing. They are voting against more dental services. The Leader of the Opposition cannot blame the member for Gellibrand for the mess he has got himself into. He knows just how hopeless the states are in this area. He thinks the states are so hopeless that they cannot even be trusted to run public hospitals properly. He wants to rip the public hospitals off the states, but somehow he is going to give them more money to further mismanage state public dental schemes. The Leader of the Opposition, of all people, ought to know that you can do a lot better than the Keating scheme. In 1995, when he was the director-general of the cabinet office and the Keating scheme had been in place for two years, public dental waiting lists in Queensland were still three years long and there were press reports of pensioners on the Gold Coast having to do their own teeth extractions with pliers. That is what they were doing when he was the director-general in Queensland and the Keating scheme was in place. The fact that he wants to put in place today something that he knew was gravely flawed then shows just what a fake and a phoney this Leader of the Opposition is. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms Roxon —I seek leave to table a report from the Sydney Morning Herald in February 2005 where the minister supports the Keating government’s dental plan. Leave granted. 8 8 14:34:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is to the Prime Minister and refers to his reply to my earlier question where he said that dental health has been the responsibility of the states since time immemorial. Has the Prime Minister recently read the Constitution, which states in section 51: 51. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:—                …              …              … The provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployemnt, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services ... Has the Prime Minister now suspended the Constitution, or on what basis does the Prime Minister now claim that since time immemorial the states have had exclusive responsibility for dental? When will the Prime Minister cease engaging in the blame game with the states? When will the Prime Minister put forward a practical— Government members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Members on my right! The Leader of the Opposition will resume  his seat. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Minister for Ageing will remove himself under standing order 94(a). The member for Sturt then left the chamber. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will repeat the last part of his question. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Thanks, Mr Speaker. Why has the Prime Minister argued that the states have had responsibility for dental since time immemorial when the Constitution says the reverse? Prime Minister, why are you only interested in playing the blame game with the states, rather than putting forward a practical plan to reduce dental waiting lists for 650,000 Australians now on those lists? 9 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —Can I say in reply to the Leader of the Opposition that, whatever delusions of grandeur he may have, prime ministers, or indeed putative prime ministers, cannot suspend the Constitution of this country. Nothing in the reading of a section from the Constitution alters the fact that, to borrow my phrase, for time immemorial the states have provided for public dental treatment. And it was because there were long waiting lists at state dental hospitals that the Keating government introduced a one-off plan. When we inherited a parlous fiscal position in 1996 we took advice. We found that those waiting lists had been reduced and the program, having fulfilled its goals, was therefore terminated. I simply ask: why is the Leader of the Opposition stealing $100 million from a dental program designed to help the elderly, the sick and the chronically ill in this country? Our program is worth $384 million. It will assist 200,000 people. It was opposed in the parliament last night. The shadow minister made it very clear in her speech that the Labor Party would use the $384 million to fund their own plan, and their own plan is only going to cost $290 million. I simply ask: where is the $100 million? How can it be good public policy to take that $100 million from a dental program that is due to start in a few weeks time and replace it with an inferior program that merely gives $290 million to the states? I do not think the quality of public health administration in the states warrants them getting $290 million out of a Commonwealth program worth $384 million. No government in this country is perfect but, when it comes to public health, the most imperfect governments of all are state Labor governments. I would not give them another $290 million. I would keep the $384 million in the Abbott program, which is going through the parliament at the present time, which will benefit 200,000 Australians. I advise the Leader of the Opposition to put away the Constitution and to exercise a bit of common sense. I was fascinated by the lecture I received from Rudd J on the meaning of the Constitution. The truth is that, for time immemorial, states have been looking after public dental clinics. And for time immemorial those state Labor governments have been failing in their responsibilities. Our program will do something practical about it and ought to be supported—it ought not be short-changed. DZY Georganas, Steve, MP Mr Georganas interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Hindmarsh is warned! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —The Labor Party should be ashamed of itself for taking $100 million away from the dental care needs of older Australians. 10 10 14:40:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 1 Mr SLIPPER —My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the minister advise the House on how the government is taking difficult decisions in relation to the provision of transport infrastructure investment in order to keep our economy strong? Would the minister also advise the House whether there are any alternative views and, if so, what is the response of the government to those views? 10 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr VAILE —I thank the member for Fisher for his question and recognise the important job he does in representing that electorate on the Sunshine Coast in Queensland, a very important tourism destination. Having been a lawyer in private practice and a small business man, he knows how important it is that governments continue to generate growth and prosperity in the economy through investing in infrastructure, which would be lost on his political opponent in the upcoming federal election. If you go to the ALP website to have a look at who the ALP candidate in the electorate of Fisher is, it is a very interesting read. It actually changed. The Labor Party have had the airbrush out again. On 1 September, if you had a look at who the Labor Party opponent to the member for Fisher was, it was Darrell. The website said: He later worked for many years in psychiatric institutions prior to becoming a full-time union official. Of course he was a full-time union official. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 104. At least we have candidates. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I am listening carefully. The Deputy Prime Minister has only just begun to develop his answer. He is in order. I call the Deputy Prime Minister. SU5 Vaile, Mark, MP Mr VAILE —So that was on 1 September. Today, if you read the website, it says of Darrell: ... starting his working life as a shop assistant, later trying a number of jobs including labourer and telegram boy. Full stop! The bit about being a union official has been airbrushed off the website. I wonder how many other candidates who have that background, which the Labor Party have become quite sensitive about, have had that changed on their website. That is the candidate standing against a former small business person in the electorate of Fisher. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question was about infrastructure. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I am listening carefully. If the member continues to interrupt ministers I will deal with him. I call the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister will come back to the question. SU5 Vaile, Mark, MP Mr VAILE —I am just identifying the point that the background of members on this side is overwhelmingly from the private sector and from small business. We understand how important tourism is to the Sunshine Coast in Queensland and how important the investment we are making in infrastructure is to tourism on the Sunshine Coast. I am making the point that that is critical to good representation. The member for Fisher has been a great supporter of the $38 billion program we have undertaken to invest in infrastructure across Australia. He has also been a great supporter of encouraging and facilitating private sector investment in infrastructure across Australia, particularly that which is going to benefit the tourism industry. Today I know that he supported the announcement I made on behalf of the government to approve a $1 billion investment in the Brisbane airport of the new parallel runway, which needs to be started today so it is ready in eight years time, when that airport reaches its capacity as far as inbound tourism is concerned. We need to be able to take these tough decisions when they come along. Brisbane airport is currently managing 17 million passenger movements per year. In 2015, when the new parallel runway is completed, it will be carrying 25 million passenger movements, and in 2035 it is forecast to carry 50 million passenger movements. The economic activity generated by that airport is worth about $17 billion in south-east Queensland. The point I am making is that it takes a small businessman to recognise its value, and that it generates jobs in the community—not union hacks that are going to come into this parliament, if they are elected to represent the Labor Party. In making the decision about the new parallel runway in Brisbane, we have taken into consideration a lot of the environmental and economic concerns in the community: the consultation process that has been undertaken and the design of what is going to be a very significant piece of infrastructure in Brisbane. The draft EIS indicates that there will be 185,000 fewer people affected by aircraft noise as a result of this development compared to what there would be if the current circumstances were allowed to continue with the growth that is forecast. Having parallel runways allows the airport to operate simultaneous opposite direction operations at night on those two runways so that all air traffic is out over Moreton Bay and not over the suburbs of Brisbane. This underpins the government’s decision on this. We know the Leader of the Opposition has a position on this. Do you know what it is? It is to have another inquiry about a curfew at Brisbane airport—this is not No. 96 that we are speaking about; this is No. 97—an inquiry about aircraft noise and a curfew at Brisbane airport. His colleagues in the Labor government in Queensland do not agree with him. They do not want a curfew at Brisbane airport. They see it driving the Queensland economy and want no curfew at Queensland airport. They want this development to go ahead and they want this parallel runway built because that is the way to mitigate aircraft noise around Brisbane. The Leader of the Opposition just wants to set up another inquiry. He is all about setting up reviews and inquiries and forming committees, and that is no recipe for good government. It is no substitute for making tough decisions and it is no substitute for good leadership—and he would not be a good leader of this country. 11 11 14:47:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer him to Labor’s plan for a housing affordability fund, which will save first home buyers up to $20,000, and a rental tax incentive scheme to make rental accommodation more affordable. Does the Prime Minister agree with the member for Herbert when he says that mortgage stress can be blamed on financially illiterate couples and his only advice to them is they should sit on milk crates in the lounge room until they can afford chairs? Apart from the milk crate solution, what is the Prime Minister’s plan to deal with the housing affordability crisis? Is it, once again, simply to blame the states? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Before I call the Prime Minister, part of that question that refers to comments by a colleague of the Prime Minister is not in order. The last part is. I call the Prime Minister. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: is your ruling that the Prime Minister is not accountable for statements made by members of his team? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Grayndler would be well aware that, if he wishes to raise questions with me, he will do so at the appropriate moment. I have ruled on that part of the question. I call the Prime Minister. The last part of the question is in order. 12 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —The Leader of the Opposition refers to Labor’s housing affordability plan. He refers me to it and asks me what I think of it. I can tell you one thing about our plan—it will not involve misleading Rosanna Harris. I do not intend to sit in the kitchen of some person who has been conned into doing an interview with somebody who has tried to sell a plan, look her straight in the face and say, ‘You are going to be about 50 bucks a week better off,’ when you know that you are lying through your teeth when you say that. The Leader of the Opposition, the alternative Prime Minister of this country, presumably—I think I know the pattern—got in touch with Stanhope’s office and Stanhope lined up somebody— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to parliamentary language. The Prime Minister should withdraw that allegation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I listened carefully to the Prime Minister and I believe that, while it may not be the most desirable use of language, he was not using unparliamentary language. He is in order. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —What happened was that the Leader of the Opposition, knowing that the policy would not benefit Rosanna Harris, told her that it would. That is what happened. He knew it would not benefit her, or, if he did not know it would not benefit, he did not even understand his own policy. He cannot have it both ways. He was either misleading this lady or he did not understand his own policy. He can take his pick. Either judgement condemns the Leader of the Opposition. I am asked about our approach to housing affordability. I am invited by the Leader of the Opposition, with his hand on his heart, not to blame the states. Let me say to the Leader of the Opposition that, where the states are to blame, I will blame them; where the Commonwealth must accept responsibility, I will accept that responsibility. In relation to housing affordability, the overall state of the economy is something for which the Commonwealth is responsible. I am very pleased to say that the thing the overall state of the economy affects more than anything else when it comes to housing affordability is the level of interest rates. I am pleased to report to the House that interest rates under this government have, on average, been 4½ per cent lower than they were under the former government. I am pleased to report to the House that people still remember that interest rates hit 17 per cent under the former government. If anybody thought I was the only person who remembers that, I met a lot of people last weekend and a lot of them mentioned 17 per cent. They remember it. It is our responsibility to look after the general level of economic activity—we accept responsibility for that—but it is not our responsibility to preside over general land releases. It is not our responsibility to set policy in relation to development charges. It is not our responsibility to set stamp duty imposts. It is not our responsibility to impose land tax. Federal land tax in this country was abolished about 40 or 50 years ago. The Leader of the Opposition asks me about rental affordability. One of the reasons we retain negative gearing is to encourage people to invest in rental properties. There is only one side of politics that has ever tinkered with abolishing negative gearing. That was the Keating government. They abolished it for 12 months between 1986 and 1987 and it resulted in a very rapid escalation in rent. That policy was hastily reversed. So I say to the Leader of the Opposition, ‘Yes, I will engage in the blame game where blame ought to be apportioned: to those governments that are to blame.’ State governments carry a great deal of the responsibility, and the Leader of the Opposition need not imagine that, by some constant reference to the blame game, he is going to discourage us from reminding the Australian people of the failures of state governments in this area. 13 13 14:54:00 Barresi, Phillip, MP ZJ6 Deakin LP 1 Mr BARRESI —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer update the House on developments in the regulation of home loan lending practices? Are there any risks from inappropriate practices? 13 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr COSTELLO —I thank the honourable member for Deakin for his question. I wish him well in the forthcoming election as he battles another trade union official—an ETU official running for the Labor Party in Deakin. Yesterday the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics tabled a report on home loan lending practices and the processes used to deal with people in financial difficulty. The report said that there should be better protection against inappropriate lending practices and guidance on lending obligations to borrowers facing financial hardship. This government would agree with this. We believe that this is an area where there should be better regulation. In fact, although consumer credit is the responsibility of the states, and the states run the law that governs how much money can be lent and the terms and conditions on which it can be lent, the Commonwealth has offered to take over from the states, on a reference, power in this area if it would help them to deal with the matters. But the states have declined and have set about putting their own improved legislation into place in this area. This has been a long and tortuous process, however, and it has been going on at the state level for about 4½ years. It was in May 2003 that the states’ Standing Committee of Officials on Consumer Affairs first established a working group to work in this area. It was in August 2003 that they approved a work proposal. In November 2004 they released a regulation impact statement. In July 2005 they approved, in an out-of-session paper, that they would incorporate changes. In February 2006 they cleared the decision-making RIS and in September 2006 they asked the New South Wales government to draft a bill. That has been going on since May 2003. So you can imagine my surprise this morning to hear the member for Lilley wander up to his doorstop and complain that the Commonwealth had been dilatory in relation to this matter. This has been in the hands of state governments since May 2003. Talk about the blame game! Here is the blame game: the Labor Party looks around for any failure of a state government and then tries to blame the Commonwealth for it. And when you are looking around for failures of state governments you do not have a shortage of material. You have the Queensland government, with its health scandals and water crisis; you have the New South Wales government, which cannot manage a public transport system; you have the Victorian government that has done nothing about water for years; and you have the South Australian government, which is dithering about its desalination plant. These all have one thing in common: they are all Labor governments. If there is anybody in Australia who thinks that you could improve administration in Australia by taking incompetent Labor from a state level to incompetent Labor at a federal level, they need their head read. A bigger point here is—let me tell you—that state Labor, bad as it is, is the First XI of the Labor Party. Federal Labor are more incompetent. It would be hard to believe, but I think the member for Lilley would pale in competence beside such luminaries as Morris Iemma and Anna Bligh. Can I say, regulation of insurance brokers is an important thing. Can I say, again, the Commonwealth stands ready to take the area over on a reference. If the state governments do not want to give the Commonwealth a reference in this area, they should get on with their regulation. This has now been going for 4½ years, and we would like to see some outcome. 14 14 14:59:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with the statement by the Treasurer that there is no housing affordability crisis in Australia? 14 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I have been used to checking what is alleged to have been said by my colleagues. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Swan is warned! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —The previous question I was asked attributed some words to the member for Herbert which were in fact used by somebody else in a conversation with the member for Herbert. In those circumstances let me say to the man who sits opposite me that he has a lot of form when it comes to these things and I will check what the Treasurer said before I respond to his question. 14 14 15:00:00 Richardson, Kym, MP E0B Kingston LP 1 Mr RICHARDSON —My question is addressed to the Treasurer, the most integral part of the coalition team. Would the Treasurer inform the House of new— 5I4 McMullan, Bob, MP Mr McMullan —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The standing orders make it clear that it is unparliamentary to put ironic expressions into questions. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I say to the member for Fraser that, while he may raise a valid point of order, if the chair were to apply that rule in all cases I am sure many questions would not be allowed. The honourable member for Kingston will begin his question and get straight to his question. E0B Richardson, Kym, MP Mr RICHARDSON —Would the Treasurer inform the House of new proposals to reform tax and welfare arrangements? Who is likely to benefit from such proposals? 14 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr COSTELLO —I thank the member for Kingston for his question and, in the presence of the gallery, say he is undoubtedly the best member for Kingston that this parliament has ever seen. And so says the gallery, Mr Speaker—carried by acclamation! It is well known that the Liberal and National parties believe in keeping taxes low. That is why we have cut income tax. It is why we have cut company tax. It is why we have cut capital gains tax. It is why we got the abolition of financial institutions duty, bank account debits tax, and stamp duty on shares. It is why we abolished all exit taxes on superannuation for people over 60. That was a great breakthrough. As I said to the House yesterday, if you are on $30,000, your top marginal tax rate under the coalition government is 15c, whereas, under the Labor Party, on $30,000 your top marginal tax rate was 34c, which is more than double the coalition rate. There has been a very interesting guessing game going on as to whether or not Labor has a tax policy. There has been a very, very interesting guessing game going on. We had the member for Perth yesterday suggesting that Labor does have a tax policy. He said it has all been prepared and it is ready to go. It is in the hands of the member for Lilley; it is in the coop. He was asked about it by David Speers yesterday: SPEERS: ... you’re talking about let’s bring on the campaign.  Time’s up you said today and yet we haven’t seen things like your tax policy. SMITH: Well, and there’ll be a whole range of areas both in my portfolio and others where there’ll be announcements in the days and weeks… So there is a tax policy! This sent me looking. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr Tanner interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Melbourne! YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr Tanner interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Melbourne is warned! ET4 Bevis, Arch, MP Mr Bevis interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Brisbane is warned! CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —Where else would you find a tax policy but in Labor’s arts policy! In New directions for the arts, you find on page 6, under the heading ‘Supporting Australian Artists’, that Labor will review the current state of artists’ incomes—add that one to the review! That is No. 68, I think! It says that Labor ‘will review the current state of artists’ incomes and introduce initiatives that enable artists currently on welfare greater opportunity to produce work’. I will repeat that: artists who are on welfare need greater opportunity to produce work. You might say to yourself, ‘If you’re on welfare, you would have a lot of time to produce work if you were an artist.’ HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr Garrett interjecting— CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —The member for Kingsford Smith said that I would never have thought of something like this. Well, blow me down! I never have thought of something like this: that somebody on welfare needs more time to produce art! What are the responsibilities of someone who is on welfare? Do they have to turn up at the office at 8 am and take them away from their easel? What exactly is keeping them from producing their art? Here we have the classic rock star turned tax adviser: ‘Poor old artists—they are on welfare and they do not have enough time to paint. We had better intervene.’ Let me tell you what you do have to do if you are on welfare. Here are your obligations: you have to keep a job diary, which would ask you to record 10 job search efforts every fortnight. I do not think that would get in the way of the next Mona Lisa. I do not think that is so onerous that somebody who is on welfare needs more time to produce their art. Listen to this: Labor will develop a ‘Social Security and the Arts’ policy that harmonises current Australia Council, Centrelink and Australian Tax Office rules and determines the most equitable way to treat earnings and royalty payments for artists currently receiving welfare. Here we have another major problem in the tax system: if you are on welfare, you have difficulty receiving your royalty payments and they have to be harmonised between Centrelink and the ATO! A lot of people out there who are working hard and paying their taxes think that this is not the No. 1 problem of the Australian taxation system. There are a lot of families that are raising kids that do not think harmonising royalty payments with welfare for artists is the No. 1 priority of an incoming government, and that is because there are a lot of people that think Labor rock stars are not the people who understand where the Australian taxation system has to go in the future. Let me tell you where it has to go: it has to go to looking after families, getting income tax down, making sure people can have jobs and making sure that welfare is available for those that need a helping hand. That is where Australia is and that is where the coalition is. 16 16 15:07:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 Mr ALBANESE —My question is addressed to the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources. Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member has the call and the member will be heard. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —Mr Speaker, I am a working-class Catholic from Camperdown. Further to the minister’s answer yesterday, when he told the House that his latest newsletter does not mention the Prime Minister because it is all about him, how does he reconcile his view that it is all about him with the health minister’s— 00AMU Mirabella, Sophie, MP Mrs Mirabella —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not aware that there is any minister in this House that goes by the title of ‘envinement’. If there is, could you please— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Indi is warned! R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —How does he reconcile his view that it is ‘all about him’ with the health minister’s view: I think Malcolm’s got a big future in politics. He certainly doesn’t rate with the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Foreign Minister and others … Who are the ‘others’ in the team which the health minister is referring to? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have listened carefully to that question. I do not see how that can relate to the minister’s responsibilities. I rule the question out of order. 16 16 15:09:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 1 Mr HARTSUYKER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister update the house on Australia’s readiness to respond to emergencies in our region? Are there any proposals to change this approach? What is the government’s response? 16 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr DOWNER —I thank the honourable member for his question. I know that at the next election he has a trade union official running against him for the Labor Party, and that, I guess, will not come as any surprise to anybody in this House. I think it is fair to say that Australia has an unparalleled record in responding— 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr Brendan O’Connor interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Gorton is warned! 4G4 Downer, Alexander, MP Mr DOWNER —to disasters. Our defence forces, police, aid workers and consular officials are recognised across the Asia-Pacific region as being decisive, professional and compassionate. In April 2007, when the tsunami struck the Solomon Islands and displaced 36,000 people, Australia immediately sent a C130 aircraft, medical supplies, health workers, water, blankets and tents. In May 2006, when the Jogjakarta earthquake struck, we sent surgeons, nurses and other workers, as well as tonnes and tonnes of equipment, to assist. After the Boxing Day tsunami in 2004, Australia’s response, coordinated with the United States and Japan, I think could only be described as outstanding, as magnificent. What is impressive is not just the capabilities but the way our agencies are so well coordinated. That is why it comes as a surprise to me, when we have a system which is admired around the world, that the Leader of the Opposition apparently has an alternative policy. It not being sufficient for him to congratulate all of those people who work in this area for the outstanding work they do, he announced in January the establishment of a regional disaster management coordination authority to coordinate national defence and emergency responses—which are extremely well coordinated and work with exceptional efficiency. The Leader of the Opposition—and this is characteristic of him—wants a stunt. He wants something to say. He wants to get a run in the media. So what does he do? He says that he would establish an authority. Let it be repeated that this particular stunt adds to the 67 new departments, committees, boards and councils that the Leader of the Opposition wants to establish, which is on top of the 96 bureaucratic audits and reviews. In all of that, there will be many, many jobs for trade union officials, which, presumably, is the real objective of the exercise over and above the stunt that it involves. This is characteristic of what we are seeing from the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition is not about substance; he is about stunts. I do not think there is any debate about that. He says he wants to have three debates with the Prime Minister, including one on YouTube. We have four days this week in our national parliament—the most important democratic institution in this country. We have gone past 1½ days, and the Leader of the Opposition has so far not proposed any debate in our national parliament whatsoever. Of course, he can ask questions; he can move a censure motion; and he can have MPIs; but there is no debate from the Leader of the Opposition—just on YouTube. YouTube is more important to the Leader of the Opposition than our national parliament. A lot of this comes from California, and America generally. We have Kevin07 replacing Obama’08. That is where that idea came from. I noticed on the weekend—and I think many of you would have—the ‘New Leadership’ slogan. I thought I had seen that somewhere before. Some honourable members might remember in 1984, in the US presidential election, that Walter Mondale ran ‘New Leadership’ against Ronald Reagan. That was it—Walter Mondale. That is where the idea comes from. We are California-ising—to avoid the wrong word there—Australian politics on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition. Government in Australia is actually about decisions and substance, not stunts. The Leader of the Opposition offers the Australian public nothing more but phoney stunts, and I think in time the public will become only too aware of it. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr Howard —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 17 Personal Explanations 17 15:14:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence 1 0 Mr LINDSAY —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr LINDSAY —I do. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr LINDSAY —In question time today the Leader of the Opposition claimed that I had said that young homebuyers ‘would sit on milk crates’. I reject this claim outright. The Prime Minister has correctly identified the outright misrepresentation by the Leader of the Opposition. I table the Hansard, which confirms I made no such statement in my own right. I demand that the Leader of the Opposition not misrepresent me or anyone else in this chamber. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Herbert will resume his seat. QI4 Price, Roger, MP Mr Price —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A member should confine themselves, as you have often said, to where they have been misrepresented. The member went much further than that in his personal explanation. I would ask the Speaker to apply the same rules to the government that he applies to the opposition. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Chief Opposition Whip will not reflect on the chair. The Chief Opposition Whip would have noticed that I asked the member to resume his seat when it was obvious he was going beyond a personal explanation. 18 Miscellaneous 18 15:16:00 Mr EDWARDS,MP 83R Cowan ALP 0 0 Mr EDWARDS —Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, I refer to an answer given in the House yesterday by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs relating to veterans’ pensions. I seek leave to table an article from the Vietnam Veterans Federation of Australia dealing with the same issue, entitled ‘The great achievement: how the falling value of our disability pension was halted’, dated 16 September 2007. Leave granted. 18 Questions to the Speaker 18 18 15:16:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 Mr ALBANESE —Mr Speaker, during question time today the Prime Minister stated about the Leader of the Opposition: ‘when you know you are lying through your teeth’. It is quite clear that that is out of order. It has been ruled out of order in the past. I raised the issue in a point of order to you, but you refused to act. Mr Speaker, can you reflect on the Hansard and report back to the House either now or at the next opportunity? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I say to the Manager of Opposition Business that I was listening carefully. He would be well aware that the use of the word ‘lie’ is not encouraged. It does not add to the dignity of the House. However, there is a difference between accusing someone of being a liar and using the expression ‘is a lie’. I have ruled on the point. I do not intend to revisit it. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —Mr Speaker, just to confirm: your ruling is that it is parliamentary if members on either side of the chamber say: ‘when you know you are lying through your teeth’? That will be ruled in future? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I say to the Manager of Opposition Business that if he refers to the House of Representatives Practice he will see quite clearly that it depends on the context, the circumstances and the use of particular language. 18 18 15:18:00 McMullan, Bob, MP 5I4 Fraser ALP 0 0 Mr McMULLAN —Mr Speaker, further to the same matter, page 501 of House of Representatives Practice refers to ‘expressions which are unparliamentary and call for prompt interference, including charges of uttering a deliberate falsehood’. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Fraser. 18 18 15:19:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 0 Mr DANBY —Mr Speaker, under section 105 of the standing orders, will you ask the Treasurer to answer my question 5710 on the Notice Paper of 8 May. Similarly, would you ask the Minister for Defence to answer my question 5711 about the living conditions of defence personnel in Darwin, also of 8 May. 18 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Melbourne Ports and I will follow up his request. 18 18 15:19:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 Mr ALBANESE —Mr Speaker, you will have noted that we only had seven questions from this side of the House today, whereas the normal procedure allows for 10. The reason the Prime Minister gave for cutting question time short was time. Will you examine the length of answers that were given today? House of Representatives Practice clearly indicates that answers should be relevant to the question. Today, if you examine the Hansard, you will find that a number of the ravings from ministers opposite were clearly outside of the question which was asked. 19 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I say in response to the Manager of Opposition Business that he would be well aware that question time ends when the Prime Minister, or a senior minister, asks that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. It is not the responsibility of the chair to dictate when that point will come. In response to his second question about the length of answers, he would be aware that successive occupiers of the chair have often had difficulties with that issue but, as the standing order does not put a time limit on answers, it is not within the purview of the chair to put a strict time limit on answers. 19 19 15:21:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP 0 Ms GILLARD —Mr Speaker, further to the question just raised by the Manager of Opposition Business: when considering the length of question time, would you consider the time lost today by the deliberate and coordinated disruption of the first question from the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister? SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Mr Speaker, if you want me to cease speaking in order to warn the member for Mackellar, I will. 19 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I have listened carefully to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Has the Deputy Leader of the Opposition finished her question? 19 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP 0 Ms GILLARD —Mr Speaker, I am asking you to consider the deliberate disruption by the government today of the Leader of the Opposition’s first question. It was entirely orchestrated. 19 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I do not propose to revisit question time. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may be aware some disciplinary action was taken. On the other part of her question, I have already responded to the Manager of Opposition Business. I do not propose to add anything further. 19 Documents Mr ABBOTT (Warringah —Leader of the House) 15:22:00 —Documents are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move: That the House take note of the following documents: Migration Act 1958— Section 91Y—Protection visa processing taking more than 90 days—Report for the period 1 March to 30 June 2007. Section 440A—Conduct of Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) reviews not completed within 90 days—Report for the period 1 March to 30 June 2007. Science and Innovation—Standing Committee—Report—Pathways to technological innovation—Government response, September 2007. Debate (on motion by Mr Albanese) adjourned. 19 Matters of Public Importance 19 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —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 crisis in dental care caused by the Government’s distorted funding priorities. 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— 20 15:22:00 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP 0 0 Ms ROXON —It is a great privilege to be able to debate this issue today, because clearly the government is determined to misrepresent not only its own program but Labor’s program as well. This gives us a perfect opportunity to set out in detail the failings of the Howard government’s approach to dental care—its failing to deliver services to the hundreds of thousands of Australians around the country who are waiting for dental care and are in need of it. On top of that, whilst these failings are continuing, the government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars that could be paying for consultation after consultation and treatment after treatment in dental services for our children, the elderly and those who are finding it hard to meet the high costs of dental care in the private sector. Instead, since the last election the government has already spent in excess of $200 million just on government advertising. Put this in contrast with how much the government has spent under its chronic disease dental care program, which it trumpeted so much today in question time. When the program was announced three years ago, only about $15 million was allocated to it. Do members on this side of the House know how much of the $15 million it has spent? You would not be able to guess because it is such a small amount. Not even $2 million has been spent on a program that the government has suddenly said it will be able to spend $384 million on, even though the eligibility criteria have not changed and the complex referral processes have not changed. In fact, the paperwork has got worse; instead of three Medicare item numbers we are going to have 450 Medicare item numbers. Suddenly the government expects us to believe that this is going to provide great relief to many families around the country. It is true that the few people who can manage to squeeze themselves through the eye of the needle and meet the very strict eligibility criteria of having a chronic disease that is being exacerbated by an oral health problem and who are being managed by a GP who has written a proper management care plan and who can find a dentist who will comply with those conditions may get some extra money because of the government’s changes. But you cannot call this a dental care program. This is a shambles. I am going to take the time to tell the members, at least those on this side of the House, because I am not sure the Minister for Health and Ageing wants to hear it, how few people have been assisted by this program—which we are not prepared to support, because we believe that, if you are going to spend $384 million on dental care, you should spend it in a way that is going to be effective, you should spend it in a way that is going to provide relief to working families and you should spend it in a way that uses the infrastructure that is in place. The minister can be as critical as he likes about the type of care that the states and territories provide, but in many rural and regional communities around the country they are often the only dental services that exist. If we do not resource them properly, if we do not give them the money to be able to pay for dentists and if we do not give them support to make sure that the infrastructure that is there can be used to provide services to families in our electorates, then we are wasting money and using it ineffectively. That is what the government wants to tip more money into. I hope that there are still some South Australian members in the chamber because, in the three years that this program has been running, not a single South Australian under the age of 14 has had any assistance from it. I note that the member for Swan is in the chamber. Not a single Western Australian under the age of four has had any assistance from this program. Not a single person in the ACT under the age of 14 has had any assistance. And listen to this one: not a single person under the age of 24 in the whole of the Northern Territory qualifies for services under this program. I am taking the time to take the House through this as the government will stand up and pretend that we are taking away Christmas—that we have signed the death warrant for Santa Claus—because we are not voting for this proposal. The reason we are not voting for this proposal is that we do not vote for things that do not work. If you have a program that has already been running for three years and a government that cannot even spend the amount of money that was allocated over those three years—it can only spend about 10 per cent of it—and then does not fix any of the problems with the program, you cannot expect us to vote for it, since the program will help so few people. If you do the sums and every single person assisted by this program gets what the minister now says is a fantastic new program instead of getting the amount of money they were eligible for under the old program, even then you cannot spend $30 million—and the government wants us to agree to spend $384 million on this program. It is just a waste of money. It is the government positioning itself and pretending it is doing something on dental care for the sole reason that it cannot bring itself to give any money to the states and territories. It is so determined not to give any money to the states and territories that it has forgotten that this money should actually be directed to helping people. If it is the states and territories that have infrastructure that can be used, why would we not maximise it? Why would we not make sure that we are using those resources efficiently? Why would we not work with them to deliver those resources? Certainly we would expect in return that the states would do some particular things with this money. We have said that we would demand that they make sure that priority services are provided to those with chronic diseases that are affected by poor oral health. So the very small number of people who do manage to get through the strict criteria that the government imposes will still be covered by our program. We want to make sure that those people who are worthy and are in need do get assistance. But let’s not kid ourselves. Assisting a few people who qualify for the government’s program does not attend to the problems in my electorate of thousands of people waiting in Footscray. I know there are thousands and thousands of people on waiting lists in the member for Throsby’s electorate, in Capricornia, Ballarat, Bendigo, O’Connor and Geelong. I have travelled around the country. Everywhere we go, every dental clinic has waiting lists that would make your skin crawl—really, they would. I know that the minister wants to be dismissive of this, but the truth is that Labor is going to take to the election a Commonwealth dental program which is way in advance of what the government has done, in a number of ways: way in advance, as you have seen today, with the first instalment of our announcement— EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —So there is more, is there? 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —Minister, if you actually ever listened, if you read a press release, if you looked at the detail or if you listened to the radio, you would know that it clearly says that this is the first instalment of Labor’s Commonwealth dental program. What I have learnt about the minister is that suspense about anything kills him. He is very impatient. He does not like waiting for anything. If there is something that he thinks we should say and we do not say it straightaway, there is clearly a problem. Maybe I am actually just enjoying making you wait, Minister! Maybe we will keep doing that for a lot longer. The truth is that the minister still has to be able to explain to the public why a program that has only served 7,000 people across the country in three whole years and spent less than $2 million is suddenly going to turn into a program that can spend $384 million and actually help lots of people around the country. We know it is not true. Even the government’s most generous estimations think it might reach 200,000 people. That might just clear the waiting lists in New South Wales, but there are many, many thousands of other people around the country who need assistance. Labor has committed to one million consultations and treatments, which will have a big impact on the waiting lists around the country, and there will be more to come. I am sure we will deal with the issues that the minister has so spectacularly failed to deal with on his watch. Let us look at one of the most critical ones: the dental workforce. Every time over the last 11 years that Mr Abbott, the minister for health, has stood up and said that this is an issue just for the states to deal with, we have never heard him say that, actually, it is the Commonwealth government that has the responsibility for training health professionals. We just do not hear that at all. The minister still has nothing to say on the fact that there is actually a workforce crisis, that there is a shortage of dentists, that this puts strain on both the public and the private systems, and that it puts strain on people for a whole lot of reasons, but particularly by pushing up prices. The only thing that we have heard in an election year budget is that the minister is going to establish a new dental school at Charles Sturt University, and we said, ‘That’s a great idea.’ We agree with that being part of the strategy. But where is a national comprehensive plan to deal with the needs of the workforce? Where is a national comprehensive plan to clear these waiting lists and make sure that we are going to be able to move forward in the future and have a dental care system that is the envy of the world, like we used to? Instead what we have is a growing problem of one in three Australians who cannot afford to go to the dentist because of cost. We are seeing figures absolutely going through the roof of hospitalisations of young children with dental problems who have not been able to get dental care early enough. Instead they are ending up in our hospital system, because we have not been able to find the money to treat those people through our public dental services or to assist them to get to private dentists. The minister cannot pretend to be proud of these figures. He cannot, when he stands up here today and tells us how wonderful he thinks this new program might be, expect us to take him on his word, because what we are going to do is look at the figures that are there. In fact, many, many times in this House in the last nine years I have heard the Prime Minister say, ‘My word is my record.’ Unfortunately for the minister for health, his record being his word does not paint a pretty picture. This program has failed, and you do not fix a failing program by tipping more money into it. The minister tried to just skirt around the detail in question time today, pretending that the eligibility for this program is changing, when he knows that is quite false. In fact, we have before the parliament at the moment a bill that makes absolutely clear that not a single part of the eligibility rules is changing. What the minister wants to pretend, by increasing the entitlements for the very small number of people who get through that eye of the needle, is that he is somehow changing the eligibility. But the truth is that 650,000 people on dental waiting lists around the country will not be assisted by providing more money to those small numbers of people. If you are in Western Australia, South Australia, the ACT or the Northern Territory, or if you do not happen to be a lucky child under four in Queensland who is eligible for this program, it is really not going to be enough, Minister. You are going to have to be able to explain to this House why any good opposition in good conscience would support this when that money could be used and spent in a better way—where, by working with the states, we could actually make their dollars and our dollars go further. Doesn’t that sound like a sensible idea? Even the minister cannot bring himself to say no because it is so obviously a sensible idea. That is where we have got to. I think it is quite devastating— TK6 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP Dr Southcott —He doesn’t like to interrupt. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —I am absolutely sure it is not because the minister does not want to interrupt. We have been here often enough to understand what rules of etiquette and engagement there are from the minister. I am 100 per cent confident that it has nothing to do with his sense of politeness that, when a lady is speaking, he has not been prepared to interrupt. The truth is that even the minister at the table has had to acknowledge the previous scheme’s success. He occasionally does have a flash of honesty where he speaks his mind. We have seen it with hospitals. We have seen it when he said, ‘Really, it might be quite a good idea to have the federal government take over hospitals; it might be quite a good idea to have a national plan.’ Lo and behold, when Labor says anything like that, it suddenly becomes a bad idea. But we found the same thing when, in February 2005, the minister was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald as clearly stating: The Keating government’s program did reduce waiting times, no doubt about that. He is on the record in the same interview as indicating, more than 2½ years ago, that the public dental scheme in his view was a ‘nightmare’ and, in the words of the journalist, not of the minister: ... a scheme his own government had abolished had successfully cut waiting times for treatment. This was a number of years ago. Unfortunately those waiting lists have got worse. Pressure has grown, the price of going to see the dentist has gone up, and the minister has had nothing to offer other than a little bit of mea culpa, saying: ‘Well, actually there were a few problems with the program. Now that we are going to tip a whole heap of extra money into it, that will fix it.’ Minister, you know that that is not the only problem with the program. Minister, you know that, if you do not change the eligibility, you are not going to help an extra number of people. You know that the doctors do not want to sign on to the sort of detail that is required because it is just too complicated for them. I got an email today, obviously following some of the media reports of the announcement that the Leader of the Opposition and I made. This person, not known to me—I will not use his name because I am not sure if he wants to be identified—had gone and looked at the speech that was given last night on the bill that is before the House. The email says: Excellent speech—just what the dentists want and have been asking for. My friends in private practice prefer to treat deserving cases for free rather than bother with the hopeless Medicare scheme. By the time they’ve paid their tax on the miserable fees it’s not worth the cumbersome administrative time, let alone the hassles. Patient and relative appreciation is better too. Minister, this is just one person who has bothered to send us an email and does not in any way discount the hundreds of people that all of us have met over the last 11 years. We have been faced with constituents who come to our mobile offices and come when we have been campaigning to say, ‘Bring back the Commonwealth dental scheme and provide some relief to people who do not have enough money to pay for dental care,’ and your program does not provide that. (Time expired) 24 15:38:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 0 Mr ABBOTT —A smart opposition would have had a very obvious tactic before it. A smart opposition would have supported the government’s scheme and then proposed one of its own on top of that. That is what a smart opposition would have done, but not this opposition. This opposition wants to abolish the government’s scheme and instead propose a scheme which is smaller and worse than that which the government has put on the table and which is going through the parliament at this time. The fact that the shadow minister opposite, the member for Gellibrand, felt the need to commence her remarks today by saying that what she announced today was but the first instalment of Labor’s dental plan demonstrates that she knows that she has got it wrong. It demonstrates that she knows that trying to trump a $385 million scheme with a $290 million scheme simply does not work. So she has made a terrible mistake. She has dumped her leader in it, and the fact that she was buzzing around throughout question time today getting a bit of trauma counselling from the member for Jagajaga and others shows that she knows that she has made a serious tactical mistake. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms Roxon interjecting— 10000 Secker, Patrick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Secker)—Order! The member for Gellibrand has spoken. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —Let me say in all frankness that the allied health professionals scheme in respect of dentistry that was put in place early in 2004 has not worked as well as the government wanted it to, and that is why the government has completely restructured the scheme. The problem with the scheme that we put in place in 2004 was not the referral system. The referral system works perfectly well now that doctors have got used to it. For allied health professional consultations for people on team care plans, it works perfectly well. In the last financial year 400,000 people were put on team care plans. Those doctors did not have a problem with establishing which of their patients had chronic disease and complex care needs. Those doctors did not have a problem. Those patients were perfectly qualified for assistance under Medicare. There were one million allied health professional consultations under these team care plans. Those allied health professionals did not have a problem with the paperwork. So, if the doctors do not have a problem with the referral process and if the allied health professionals do not have a problem with the paperwork in respect of all other conditions, there is no reason to think that there is going to be an insuperable problem in respect of dentistry. No, the problem in respect of dentistry was that the scheme as it has operated just covered consultations. People with poor oral health do not want a consultation; they want to treatment, for God’s sake! And do you know what Labor are going to give them? Consultations! Useless consultations, not the treatment that they need. That is why our scheme is so good and that is why it is so sad, not so much for the people who need this treatment, because this legislation will pass the parliament, but for the credibility of the shadow minister opposite. Just like the former Leader of the Opposition voting against tax cuts, she is voting against $385 million worth of dental treatment for people who really need it. Who is going to get dental treatment under this scheme? People with chronic disease and contributing poor oral health. There are about a million Australians with diabetes, there are a lot more than that who have heart disease, there are hundreds of thousands of people who have cancer and there are tens of thousands of people who have serious mental health problems. All of those people are potentially eligible for this scheme. Does the shadow minister opposite seriously believe that none of the 700,000 people for whom GP care plans were established in the last financial year has serious oral health problems? Is that really what she is saying? The fact is that many of them do, and they will be eligible, or potentially eligible, for help under this excellent scheme which is going through the parliament as we speak. Let us be absolutely clear about the political folly. I see the shadow minister is getting a bit more trauma counselling from her predecessor, the former shadow minister for health, the member for Lalor. I am afraid the author of Medicare Gold is not going to be able to give too much good advice to the author of the current policy turkey from the Australian Labor Party. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that she is not in her seat. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —Let me just say again to the member for Gellibrand: how on earth can you trump a $385 million plan with a $290 million plan? How on earth can you trump a plan that covers 450 dental items with a plan that covers just one dental item, a consultation alone? It does not cover dentures, it does not cover fillings, it does not cover extractions and it does not cover root canal work—it does not cover all the things that people with poor dental health need. So how can her plan, which covers just one item, trump a plan that covers 450 items? How can you trump a plan that is ongoing, as the government’s plan is, with one which will terminate after just three years? How can you trump a plan which is demand driven, as the government’s plan is, with one which is budget limited? No, the member for Gellibrand has got herself into a real mess here. She would have been much better off just keeping her counsel. If she really does have something up her sleeve, something in addition for dental health, she should have saved what she announced today for then and given us a full dental health plan rather than this pathetic, puny effort which has been announced today and just makes members opposite look like they are not serious about Medicare, not serious about dental health and do not really understand what they are talking about. I accept that there are many people in this country who would like better dental care. I have no reason to doubt the figures that the member opposite quotes of 650,000 people on public dental waiting lists around Australia. I am aware, thanks to my friend and colleague the New South Wales member for North Shore and shadow minister for health in the state of New South Wales, of the appalling state of public dental treatment in New South Wales. I know that at the Westmead dental clinic, for instance, there are people with no teeth of their own and no false teeth who, according to the clinical guidelines, should be treated within three months—and even that is far too long; an inexcusable delay. But I am aware that, thanks to the incompetence of the New South Wales government, people in that tragic condition are waiting not three months but 2½ years for treatment. I am aware of that. But, unlike members opposite, I do not say that the incompetence of the states is the fault of the federal government; I say the incompetence of the states is the fault of the states. I know, as members opposite do, that the Howard government did not renew the Keating government scheme. While the scheme did not work especially well, whatever good it was going to do had been done by 1996, and so it was not renewed. This idea that the problems of 2007 are all the fault of a federal government decision in 1996 does not stand serious scrutiny. It is ridiculous to think that the problems of 2007 all stem from a federal government decision back in 1996 when the problems in question have always been the responsibility of the states. The constant claim from members opposite is verging on the ridiculous. It is almost as if the people of Britain would complain against the Italians because the Romans went home in 410 AD and they have been suffering ever since from the lack of the legions. Let me tell the member opposite a little about the Keating scheme. When the Keating scheme was in place, spending $100 million a year, the states were spending $200 million a year. Under the member for Gellibrand’s proposal, she is going to spend less than $100 million at a time when the states are spending $500 million. So her scheme is less than half as significant— 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms Roxon —What are you spending? 10000 Secker, Patrick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Secker)—Order! The member for Gellibrand is warned! EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —as the Keating scheme was in terms of weight of money dedicated to public dentistry. The Keating scheme was not very good because we know that public dental waiting lists in Queensland were still up to three years in 1995, notwithstanding the political brilliance of the Leader of the Opposition in managing everything in the Christian socialist state of Queensland at that time. If the Keating government scheme did not work very well when it contributed 50 per cent of the quantum being spent by the states, this revived Keating government scheme is going to work even less well when it is spending 20 per cent of the quantum spent by the states. The Prime Minister was asked again and again today: will you embrace Labor’s plan? Of course we won’t embrace Labor’s plan, because Labor’s plan is not a very good one and the plan that the government has put in place, which has been out there for all to see since this year’s budget, is a much better one. Members opposite are constantly accusing this government of neglecting dental health. Through the private health insurance rebate we spend about $400 million on dental health. How much did Labor spend on dental health except for the $100 million a year of the Keating scheme? Nothing; absolutely nothing. So, on top of the $385 million that we are proposing to spend under the revamped allied health professional scheme there is the $400 million a year that we spend through the private health insurance rebate. The member for Gellibrand said that we were neglecting dental training. Let me inform the member that there was no substantial increase in dental training places throughout the life of the former Labor government. In 1996 there were 356 commencing dental students in this country; by 2002, thanks to the policies of this government the number had risen to 444; by 2005, thanks to this government the number had risen to 529; in 2010 there will be 569—and I am pleased that the member for Gellibrand is writing these figures down because she might learn something for a change; she is listening for once. It is good that she is writing it down and I hope she remembers it, because these figures show that there has been a 50-plus per cent increase in public dental training, thanks to this government. As I said, I do not pretend for a second that the states have managed the public dental schemes well. I accept there are problems, but the job of the federal government is not to relieve the states of what is their responsibility; the job of the federal government is to run federal health programs as well as it possibly can. That is why we have chosen to make our good Medicare system—our great Medicare system—even better by giving it not just a small and minor dental component but a very substantial dental component. I accept that not all of the 650,000 people on the public dental waiting lists are going to be helped by our scheme, but many of them will. The people on the public dental waiting lists are invariably pensioners—most of them are old age pensioners. Most old age pensioners have chronic disease and those of them that have serious oral health will at least potentially be helped by this scheme. It is a demand driven scheme. I would not be at all surprised if, as things pan out, an enormously larger number than the 200,000 currently envisaged benefit from this scheme and the government ends up riding to the rescue of these people to the tune of much more than $385 million over four years. 27 15:53:00 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 0 Mr KELVIN THOMSON —Old age pensioners in my electorate have seen the government’s scheme. Two of them—Salvatore and Carmella Raiti of Merlynston—recently visited the Brunswick dental health clinic seeking a new set of dentures and were told that they would have to wait three years for a new set of dentures. They could have the dentures made privately for between $3,000 and $5,000. They do not have $3,000 or $5,000 apiece—and so they wait. Mr Raiti, aged 78, and his wife, who is disabled, have been left in constant pain. She is unable to eat many foods because of the poor state of her teeth. Another pensioner in my electorate, 86-year-old Vito Romeo of Coburg, also visited the Brunswick dental health clinic and was told that he would have to wait four years for a new set of dentures to replace his 15-year-old set. He is a widower who lives alone. He was quoted $4,000 if he wanted to get a new set of dentures through a private dentist. He said, ‘I can’t wait much longer because of the pain. It hurts very much.’ It is disgraceful that my constituents should live like this, living a Third World life in a First World country. There are currently two dental care centres in Wills. Residents who go to the Morelan community dental service in Brunswick or the Dianella service in Glenroy face waits of anywhere between two and three years for check-ups for natural teeth and even longer for dentures. This is not the fault of these services. It is scandalous that, in a prosperous country, in a prosperous era, Australia’s teeth should be in such dismal shape. There are 650,000 people on waiting lists for public dental care, with an average waiting time of 27 months. Tooth decay ranks as Australia’s most prevalent health problem. Untreated dental decay in the Australian population stands at over 25 per cent—incredible! More than a quarter of Australians are not getting the dental care that they require. Even worse, about 50,000 Australians a year are being hospitalised for preventable dental conditions. What a false economy. We do not give people timely dental treatment and then we have to treat them in hospital, picking up the pieces of our earlier neglect. It is pure folly and, from my point of view, most disturbing of all is the evidence now coming out about the decline in the dental health of our kids. In the mid-1990s, Australian kids had the world’s best teeth, but from 1996 to 1999 five-year-olds experienced a 20 per cent plus increase in tooth decay. Between 1994 and 2004 hospitalisation rates for children under five, for the purposes of removal or restoration of teeth, increased by over 90 per cent, according to the New South Wales Chief Health Officer. The health insurance company, MBF, recently released information which showed a 42 per cent increase in children being treated in private hospitals for dental cavities. There are two reasons why we have these Third World dental care arrangements in Australia: the first is the lack of funding, which has been severely exacerbated by the actions of the Howard government; the second is a workforce shortage issue—a lack of trained dentists. This is entirely the responsibility of the Howard government. As to the first issue, the underfunding, members opposite, in their typical blame game way, say, ‘This is the fault of the states.’ They are interested in playing the politics of the issue. This is what they have done for the past decade and, if they get re-elected, it will happen all over again for the next three. We will get finger pointing and blame shifting instead of what we need: a genuine cooperative attempt to solve the problem. It ought to be remembered that Labor had a Commonwealth dental health program back in 1996, but when the Liberal and National parties came to power, they scrapped it. They ripped out $100 million a year from Australia’s public dental system; they said we could not afford it. They said that the axing was necessary to deal with the budget deficit, but when the budget went into surplus was the dental health program restored? No, it was not. And so it is that we now see hundreds of thousands of Australians languishing on dental waiting lists. In July 2004—correct me if I am wrong, but I think that was an election year—the government came up with what it called the Medicare dental program for people with chronic conditions and complex care needs. The number of people that this program, trumpeted loudly in 2004, has assisted is around 7,000—just 7,000 people assisted in over three years when we have a dental waiting list of 650,000. The reason for this is simple enough. The program has been narrowly targeted to people with chronic conditions and complex care needs. When I use the word ‘complex’, I mean complex. Let me take the House through the eligibility guidelines which have been in operation for these services over the past three years: a) the service is provided to a person whose dental condition is exacerbating a chronic and complex condition that is being managed by a medical practitioner (including a general practitioner, but not a specialist or consultant physician) under an Enhanced Primary Care plan; and b) the service is recommended in the person’s EPC plan as part of the management of the person’s chronic and complex condition— But wait, there’s more: c) the person is referred to the eligible dental practitioner by the medical practitioner using a referral form that has been issued by the department (of Health and Ageing) or a referral form that substantially complies with the form issued by the Department— and there is still more: d) the person is not an admitted patient of a hospital or day-hospital facility; and e) after the assessment, the eligible dental practitioner gives a written report to the referring medical practitioner— We are still not there yet: f) in case of a service in respect of which a private health insurance benefit is payable—the person who incurred the medical expenses in respect of this service has elected to claim the Medicare benefit in respect of the service, and not the private health insurance benefit. If you have managed to negotiate your way through the maze, you are entitled to a maximum of three services. It is in fact easier to extract a tooth, and it is little wonder some people are reported to have resorted to do-it-yourself methods like the old piece of string tied to the doorhandle. This sort of gobbledegook leads to chronic underspending, and the government’s claim that it has a $385 million program would make a cat laugh. It is fanciful. It is a fraud. It is one of those programs which has a large allocation with precious little money being spent. This government has not been able to find $100 million a year to reinstate the dental health program to look after people’s teeth, but it has been able to find $200 million a year—twice as much—to engage in self-promotion by way of government advertising. I remind the House that in September 1995—12 years ago—when the then opposition leader, John Howard, promised that a Liberal government would ask the Auditor-General to establish a set of guidelines for government advertising, he said: We will run our advertisements past the Auditor-General and they will need to satisfy those guidelines. This turned out to be one of the Prime Minister’s notorious non-core promises, a deceptive piece of propaganda designed to get voters to support him. Since then, we have seen a staggering $2 billion spent on such notorious propaganda campaigns as the GST ‘Unchain My Heart’ ads, the Strengthening Medicare campaign and the Work Choices campaign. After the ‘Unchain My Heart’ campaign, the Auditor-General, to his credit, produced a set of guidelines designed to draw the line between bona fide government advertising and political advertising, for which the Liberal Party should be paying, not taxpayers. The government ignored those guidelines. The consequences are that while the polls are indicating the electorate wants the government to listen to it more, to pay more attention to it, instead the government is out there with a taxpayer megaphone, a taxpayer funded loudhailer, screaming into the electorate’s ear because it thinks the electorate will get the message if only the government yells a little louder. So we have seen massive spending: $200 million this year on Work Choices, superannuation, private health insurance and the climate change campaign. In stark contrast, Labor has a vision for the future: one million additional dental consultations for Australians through a $290 million program which is real money, not Monopoly money. 29 16:03:00 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 1 0 Dr SOUTHCOTT —The most authoritative survey of Australia’s oral health is the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s national adult oral health survey, which looked at the health of our teeth from 2004 to 2006 and reported in March 2007. It found that 30 per cent of Australians were avoiding dental care due to cost, that 20 per cent of people identified cost as preventing them from seeking a recommended treatment and 18 per cent reported that they would have difficulty paying a $100 dental bill. This is not something that is in dispute; this is something that is agreed. It is based on the best information that we have from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Where we differ is how we should approach this to do the best for Australia. It is worth recognising that in the contributions from the shadow minister for health and from the previous speaker, also from the Labor Party, we heard a lot about the state of Australia’s oral health but we did not hear a lot about the state and territory governments. It is a matter of fact that our public dental services are run by the state and territory governments and always have been. What we see now when we look around Australia is lengthening waiting lists for public dental services. The Australian government does have a role to play in dental health but it is important to recognise that, for most people, something like 85 per cent of dental services are run through the private sector. It would be a big mistake to put all of your eggs in one basket, to focus exclusively on the public dental services because on this side we believe that people, where possible, should be able to visit a dentist of their choice. We have done a number of things to make that option more accessible to people. We introduced in 1998 the private health insurance rebate, a subsidy of 30 per cent for people who have private health insurance. That subsidy is greater for people over 65 and 70 years of age—it is 35 per cent for people over 65 and 40 per cent for people over 70. The direct contribution we make just in the private health insurance rebate is approximately $400 million a year for dental services. We also make a contribution for the university training of dentists. Most recently we have announced a new school of dentistry and oral health at Charles Sturt University in Bathurst to address some of the workforce issues in dentistry. We announced a new measure for Medicare in this year’s budget which should help 200,000 people with chronic health conditions over the next four years. It should help to reduce the numbers of people who are on the state government dental waiting lists. What the measure in this year’s budget provided for was that, for people with chronic and complex conditions like diabetes, heart disease or cancer, where oral health is having or could have an impact on the person’s general health, there would be a Medicare item for them to visit a dentist. They must be under a GP management plan, but there are something like 700,000 people on GP management plans. They must be part of a team care arrangement. Residents of aged-care facilities are eligible for this measure if they are managed by a GP under a multidisciplinary care plan. But what it requires is for the patient to be referred to a dentist by a GP. This is a very significant measure. It allows for up to $4,250 worth of Medicare funded dental treatment over two consecutive calendar years. It covers 450 items on the Medicare Benefits Schedule. It allows for things like restorative dental work and dentures, which federal Labor’s scheme does not allow for. When we look at this scheme I think it is true to say that the scheme that we first introduced has not met our expectations. But what we do find is that a similar scheme to this works very well with the veterans. What we have done is mirror those arrangements. So when we look at the differences between Labor and the government, their scheme is just the old Keating scheme. What it involves is giving $295 million directly to the states. It is a bureaucratic solution. I guess the only thing we have to be thankful for is that the Leader of the Opposition has not announced another committee or another review, but this is a bureaucratic solution. It is the sort of solution you would expect a bureaucrat to come up with. The problem is that our scheme, which is $385 million over four years, would be axed and replaced by one which is $90 million less and which just involves giving the money directly to the state and territory governments. When we look at how the state and territory governments have performed, we find that in the public dental services the infrastructure is run down and they have tremendous problems attracting people to work in that sector. I think it is crazy to ignore the role that the private sector can play in delivering these services. The Labor Party have announced that state governments would be required to meet new standards and that there would be: priority services for individuals with chronic diseases affected by poor oral health, timely service for preventative and emergency services, maintaining current effort. That is basically meaningless. The state governments would argue that they already do that. In fact, when you look at the guidelines that the state governments set for their own schemes, you find out that they are meaningless within their own systems. For example, in New South Wales it is required that someone with no false teeth and no teeth of their own should be seen within three months, and yet the waiting list is more like 2½ years. The debating point raised by the member for Gellibrand and shadow minister for health was that our current scheme has not been utilised by any child in South Australia and a number of states. Speaking from the perspective of my own state, there is a very simple reason for this. The South Australia Dental Service has, as part of it, the school dental service, which offers comprehensive dental care to all South Australian children from birth to 18 years of age. The service is free for preschool, primary and high school students with a school card or who are dependants or holders of a Centrelink concession card. So this is one of the dangers of having someone inexperienced look at a whole bunch of statistics and say: ‘Eureka! I’ve found it. Children aren’t using this in South Australia.’ There is a very simple reason: we have a school dental service available for all children. One of the problems with Labor’s scheme is that it relies on having more people to work as public sector dentists and it completely ignores the role that the private sector could play in providing these services. In conclusion, there is a very clear choice here. We recognise that people should be able to go to the dentist of their choice and we have found a way to do this through Medicare. That will allow people to have up to $4,250 of Medicare funded services with their dentist and will include things like dentures or restorative dental work as well as all of the preventative dental health that is so important for people with the chronic conditions like cancer, heart disease and diabetes. 31 16:13:00 Gibbons, Steve, MP 83X Bendigo ALP 0 0 Mr GIBBONS —The Howard government’s neglect of this nation’s dental health for the past 11 years is nothing short of scandalous. The decaying state of our dental health system under the coalition is matched only by the decaying state of Australians’ teeth. The Minister for Health and Ageing’s answer to the dental crisis is, once again, that standby of the Howard government—blame someone else. But in taking aim at the states and territories he is conveniently ignoring two things. Firstly, it was the Howard government that scrapped Labor’s Commonwealth Dental Health Program in 1996, ripping $100 million a year from Australia’s public dental system. The state and territory governments have more than doubled their investment in public dental care over the past decade, but the impact of the Howard government’s decision is still being felt today, with 650,000 Australians languishing on public dental waiting lists. In my own electorate of Bendigo there are more than 6,500 people waiting for treatment, some of whom have been waiting over three years. Secondly, the minister and the Prime Minister seem to have forgotten that the training of dental professionals is a Commonwealth government responsibility. Like workforce shortages in other areas of the health system, the neglect of this area is chronic, despite plenty of warnings of the consequences. For example, as long ago as 1998 the Senate Com-munity Affairs References Committee recommended a national oral health training strategy, which the Howard government has failed to act on. The recent increases in oral health training places at universities, while welcome, are far too little and far too late. The tough guy health minister seems to have no regard for battling Australians’ dental health. The health minister, the member for Warringah, is the Doc Holliday of Australian politics—the legendary psychopathic, gun-slinging dentist who administered his dental treatment without anaesthetic and, like the minister, who inflicts his health and dental policies on battling Australians without any anaesthetic, enjoyed inflicting pain on people. But, rather than being a gunfighter, the health minister fancies himself as a street fighter and is also proud of his prowess as a boxer. According to the Sydney Daily Telegraph, the health minister was awarded an Oxford half blue for his participation in that sport during the time he was at Oxford. It was only a half blue as boxing was not considered an appropriate sport to warrant a full blue—or perhaps the minister’s opponent was not considered a worthy opponent, as he later went on to become the director of choreography at the London ballet. Rumour has it that the ballet dancer sat the minister down with a single punch— 10000 Secker, Patrick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Secker)—The member for Bendigo will return to the subject. I fail to see what this has— 83X Gibbons, Steve, MP Mr GIBBONS —Rumour has it that the ballet dancer sat the minister down with a single punch in the first round of that contest, but I am unable to confirm or deny that rumour. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Bendigo will return to the subject. 83X Gibbons, Steve, MP Mr GIBBONS —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. Almost one-third of Australians are avoiding dental care due to the massive costs that they face today. Tooth decay is Australia’s most common health problem and is easily preventible, yet more than one-quarter of all Australians are suffering from untreated dental decay. Many on dental waiting lists are elderly, and surely we can and must do more for these people who helped build this country into what it is today. But perhaps an even bigger tragedy is the state of our children’s teeth. In the mid-1990s, Australian kids had world’s best teeth, but now there are real concerns that this is slipping. Between 1996 and 1999 there was a 21.7 per cent increase in decay among five-year-olds and there were soaring hospitalisation figures for the removal or restoration of teeth. Over a decade there has been a 91 per cent increase in hospitalisation rates for our children with dental health problems. A Rudd Labor government will end the blame game and work with the states and territories to fix Australia’s crumbling dental care system. We will provide services for those in our communities who are desperately in need of dental care. We will ensure that working families under financial pressure from higher housing, child care and petrol costs do not have to choose between the dental care they need and putting a meal on the table. Labor will provide almost $300 million to make available one million new dental consultations. This funding will allow the states and territories to either supplement their existing public services or pay for private dental appointments. State and territory governments will be expected to meet new benchmarks of care and will be required to maintain their existing commitments. Labor’s policy will provide the treatment battling Australians have needed for the past 11 years. If the Howard government spent a fraction of the money it is spending on government paid advertising to try and get itself re-elected on Australia’s dental care needs, millions of Australians would not be in the situation they are in now. I urge the Howard government to adopt Labor’s plan and put in place a decent dental health scheme that will actually deliver the care that most Australians need to those who need it. 33 16:18:00 Hull, Kay, MP 83O Riverina NATS 1 0 Mrs HULL —It is a great pleasure in this matter of public importance to be able to advise and explain to the member for Bendigo, who cites the training of oral health and dentistry as a Commonwealth responsibility, that the Commonwealth are taking full responsibility for dental services and they did so in the last budget. They actually announced a significant $64 million to establish an oral health and dentistry school at Charles Sturt University. In fact, they are providing $65.1 million for a school of dentistry and oral health. This is taking place under the guidance of Professor Mark Burton as the Director of Dentistry at Charles Sturt University, and I congratulate the member for Macquarie, Kerry Bartlett, for his tireless work and support, in association with me, in delivering this dental school to the rural people of New South Wales. It is my understanding that the CSU already has expressions of interest from students who are considering studying at the dental school, and that is without any advertising of the program at all. The Student Information Centre has already received more than 300 calls from prospective students from across inland and rural Australia. So you can imagine what is going to happen when the marketing campaign from Charles Sturt University really focuses on getting the workforce and training established. It was an absolutely calculated decision of the Minister for Health and Ageing to provide this funding in adjusting and responding to the dentistry workforce needs. When I was a child we grew up with tank water. That tank water had no fluoride. The only time you went to the dentist was when you had an abscess or a mouthful of decaying teeth. There was no such thing as fluoride in the water in the town that I came from because there was no public water system—it was all tank water. Now we have the bottled water brigade. Everybody runs to the fridges in the supermarket, the local corner store or wherever. We have the bottled water brigade out there. Everybody is contributing to the demise of their teeth by consuming all this water in plastic bottles. I wonder how, in the future, we are going to address the cavities in people’s teeth that are being contributed to by this move of people to consume only bottled water as if it is the new fad of the season. The government’s support of the CSU is a great initiative. We are going to have an extra 240 new training places for dental and oral health students over the next five years, and we are going to need those 240 places. We currently have in the House—and it will continue to be debated later—a great piece of legislation that will arrest the issues of those with chronic dental problems. However, we must look at the workforce issue. We cannot deliver dentists out of mid-air. I am very fortunate to be able to afford to pay for my dentistry work, but to get access to a dentist in a regional and rural community means long waiting periods because we simply do not have the dentists available. We really need to focus on the delivery of a workforce. There has to be a succinct plan of action that trains and delivers dentists so that they can ease the supply side. There could be so many people being provided with free dentistry at the moment, but people are not able to access it because there simply are not enough dentists out there. That is where the minister has come in with funding for this dental school, recognising that if you train rural people and rural professionals in the country they will stay in the country. I am pleased to see the member for Macquarie come into the chamber now as I have made significant reference to his efforts in delivering this school of dental and oral health. 10000 Secker, Patrick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Secker)—Order! The time for discussion has concluded. 34 Committees 34 34 34 16:23:00 Causley, Ian, MP 4K6 Page NATS 1 0 Mr CAUSLEY —I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members’ business on Monday, 15 October 2007. The report will be printed in today’s Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for the next sitting. The report reads as follows— Report relating to the consideration of private Members’ business on Monday, 15 October 2007 Pursuant to standing order 222, the Selection Committee has determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of private Members’ business on Monday, 15 October 2007.  The order of precedence and the allotments of time determined by the Committee are as follows: PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS Order of precedence Orders of the day 1 HOME OWNERSHIP: Resumption of debate (from 26 February 2007) on the motion of Mr Cadman—That the House condemns the New South Wales Government for presiding over the highest amount of State and local government taxes and charges levied on the cost of a new home and for having the largest shortfall of broad hectare land provision of any State or Territory—putting the dream of home ownership out of the reach of New South Wales families. Time allotted — 45 minutes. Speech time limits — Each Member — 5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. Notices 1 Ms Livermore: To move—That the House: recognises the importance of the coal industry to the Australian economy; notes that coal exports are Australia’s largest export industry and accounted for $24.5 billion in 2005‑06; understands that the coal industry is a highly significant employer in regional Australia; notes that the Bowen Basin in Central Queensland produces 85 per cent of Queensland’s total coal output and is vitally important to the economy of Central Queensland; asserts that the Australian Labor Party supports the coal industry and its subsequent benefits to the Australian economy; and recognises that Labor’s plans on climate change and clean coal are directed at protecting the coal industry and the jobs within this industry, while mitigating the effects of man‑made climate change. (Notice given 13 September 2007.) Time allotted — remaining private Members’ business time prior to 1.45 pm Speech time limits — Mover of motion — 5 minutes. First Government Member speaking — 5 minutes. Other Members — 5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. Orders of the day 2 AGED CARE: Resumption of debate (from 26 February 2007) on the motion of Mr Ticehurst—That the House: recognises the pressures of an ageing population; acknowledges the enormous contribution made by senior citizens throughout their working lives; recognises the need to provide quality care for the frail aged in our community; welcomes the progress made in this area in recent years; and welcomes the Government’s recently announced package of further measures to help provide community‑based and residential care for our frail aged. Time allotted — 30 minutes. Speech time limits — Each Member — 5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 3 DENTAL SERVICES: Resumption of debate (from 26 February 2007) on the motion of Mrs Elliot—That the House: notes that: since the abolition of the Commonwealth Dental Program, waiting lists for dental services have increased dramatically; an increasing number of Australians are unable to afford private dental treatment and are waiting years for dental care; and poor dental health can contribute to a deterioration in overall health; and calls on the Government to: acknowledge that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing inquiry of November 2006, The Blame Game, recommended that the Federal Government should fund dental services; reinstate a Commonwealth dental program; and end the ‘Blame Game’ and work cooperatively with the States and Territories to ensure that services are delivered. Time allotted — remaining private Members’ business time. Speech time limits — Each Member — 5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 35 Bills R2877 35 Bills R2860 35 Mr BARTLETT (Macquarie) 16:23:00 —by leave—I move: That the bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration. Question agreed to. 35 Bills R2868 35 Message received from the Senate returning the bill without amendment or request. 35 Bills R2842 35 Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be considered at the next sitting. 36 Bills R2845 36 Debate resumed from 17 September, on motion by Mr Abbott: That this bill be now read a second time. 36 16:25:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP 0 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —I would like to continue where I left off last night in responding to the government’s claims that the Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Dental Services) Bill 2007 will somehow properly respond to the dire need to improve dental health in this nation. I have to say that I am not of the view that this government has the wherewithal or the political will to address this challenge. One of the reasons this is not within the capacity of this government is that for more than a decade now there has not been any interest or inclination by the Commonwealth to attend to the growing queues in every electorate across the land of people who are looking to get their teeth fixed or to maintain the health of their teeth. There has been little or no attention paid by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Health and Ageing or any minister of this government who has held portfolios related to this very important area of public policy since 1996. We can argue, if we like, about the semantics of whether a policy or a program was abolished, axed, withdrawn or expired; the fact remains that this government, upon election on 2 March 1996, set about removing the Commonwealth dental plan that had been put in place by the previous government. And from that point on, for years hence, the government has denied that it has any responsibility whatsoever for mitigating this crisis in our health system. I am not one to suggest for a moment that the state governments do not have a role, but I do not find it at all logical or rational for every government member to blame state legislatures and state providers of services as if they do not have a role. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out in question time, there is a constitutional provision that refers to the Commonwealth’s capacity to undertake provision of dental health care. There is history, where previous governments—prior to the election of the Howard government in 1996—undertook the care of dental health and outlaid enormous amounts of Commonwealth funds to ensure that queues would go down. In the electorate of Gorton there have been increasing queues. I now have constituents who have been asked to wait more than two years—indeed, they have been asked to wait for three years—for basic dental care. That is why I think it is important for this House to consider the weight of the announcement made by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister today of the dental health plan that Labor would like to introduce if elected. A Rudd Labor government would fund up to one million additional dental consultations for Australians needing dental treatment, by establishing a Commonwealth dental health program. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition today pledged to invest up to $290 million to a Commonwealth dental health program—one of the first programs to be abolished by the Howard government 11 years ago. As the shadow minister indicated during the debate on the matter of public importance after question time, this is the first instalment of Labor’s Commonwealth dental health program. It is important to note, and it was conceded by the Minister for Health and Ageing, that there are 650,000 Australians on public dental waiting lists around the country. A 2007 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report concluded that 30 per cent of Australians reported avoiding dental care due to cost, 20.6 per cent said the cost had prevented them from having recommended dental treatment and 18.2 per cent reported that they would have had a lot of difficulty paying a $100 dental bill. Over the last 11 years, this government has withdrawn $1.1 billion in dental services. Under the federal Labor plan—and, as I have indicated, it is part of a series of announcements that will be made from this point on—up to one million Australians will finally receive much needed dental treatment. Last night in this debate I indicated how important it was for us to prevent problems in other health areas by tending to people’s dental health. It is important to realise that there is a correlation between a person’s dental health and their overall health. Therefore, not only would we be looking after people in need of care; we would be preventing consequential health problems that are occurring now because of neglect. The neglect is because of the lack of provision of services, and the government has to take some responsibility for the failure, for its abrogation of providing services in this area. Tooth decay ranks as Australia’s most prevalent health problem. Of the Australian adult population, 25.5 per cent have untreated dental decay. During the last year, one in six Australians aged over 15 have avoided certain foods because of problems with their teeth. Fifty-thousand Australians a year are hospitalised for preventable dental conditions. Between 1996 and 1999, five-year-olds experienced a 21.7 per cent increase in deciduous tooth decay. Between 1994 and 2005, the hospitalisation rates of children aged under five for dental conditions increased by 91 per cent. Between 2000 and 2005, there was a 42 per cent increase in children being treated in private hospitals for dental cavities. In 2004 the Howard government made dental care available through Medicare to people with chronic illnesses, but, as we know, the scheme has assisted only 7,000 people, at a cost of $1.8 million over three years. One of the problems we have with the government in relation to this area is that it has never seen this area of public health as a matter for concern. For 10 long years, we have had the Prime Minister and the minister for health denying any responsibility for the need to attend to this matter at a Commonwealth level. But in the shadow of an election, when the government is having some internal problems, when the government is seeking to convince the Australian public that it is fair dinkum about the future, it announces a policy on this—a policy without proper consideration, a policy that has been introduced against the backdrop of the government refusing to accept, up until now, any responsibility whatsoever for dental health. You have to wonder about the genuineness, the sincerity, of the government’s intentions in this area when it announces such a policy prior to an election. It throws millions of dollars—yet to be spent, of course—at a problem that it said for one long decade was not its problem to fix. I am very sceptical about the interest that this government shows in people in my electorate who have dental problems. As I have said before, people are sick to death of hearing the two levels of government blaming each other for the deficiencies. It is now time to end the finger pointing by one government against another. It is now time for governments at every level to commit to fixing this particular problem. I am yet to be convinced, from the efforts of the minister for health today, that the government is fair dinkum. It looks like a deliberate stunt to get past the next ballot. The government hopes to be re-elected, and it is a 50-50 proposition that it will be re-elected. It worries me that, having failed for so long now to concede that it has responsibility in the area, the Howard government might not implement this policy—one that is deficient by comparison to Labor’s—if it were to be re-elected. This is just another example of the way in which the government has responded to the agenda that has been proposed by Kevin Rudd and Labor generally over the last 12 months. The government has sought to catch up with Labor in the area of climate change. It has sought to respond to issues in the area of industrial relations. Indeed, it has sought to introduce a fairness test into its extreme and unfair workplace laws. But it has not clearly convinced the owners of Spotlight, who today in the papers have announced that they are entering into a collective union agreement because they can no longer understand the policies of the Howard government. What we have in the area of dental health is a government not serious about concerning itself with the concerns of those that have been affected, not seriously convinced that it has responsibility in the area of dental health. I think the voters of Australia will know that and will challenge the government’s intentions in this regard. (Time expired) 38 16:37:00 Draper, Trish, MP 0L6 Makin LP 1 0 Mrs DRAPER —I rise in support of the Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Dental Services) Bill 2007, but I ask the indulgence of the Speaker of the House to present my valedictory speech to the chamber. As a member of the class of ’96, with over four elections, 11½ years of service and over 13 years on the campaign trail in an extremely marginal seat, I am truly blessed to be able to stand here today and honestly say that I am most grateful for having had the opportunity to serve the electorate of Makin and the Australian people. It has been a great honour and a privilege and an extraordinary journey. I am extremely conscious that the electors of Makin have continued to support me as their local representative over the past four elections, and I thank them from the bottom of my heart. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the greatest Prime Minister in Australian history, the Hon. John Howard MP, member for Bennelong, and of course the greatest Treasurer Australia has ever had, the Hon. Peter Costello, member for Higgins. I would like to thank them both for their guidance, friendship, support and leadership since my election. Through my close working relationship with the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, I can testify to their genuine and great passion for the Australian people. I have witnessed firsthand the admiration and affection of the electorate towards the Prime Minister during his many regular visits to the Makin community. As I mentioned in my maiden speech, in the lead-up to the 1996 election, parents expressed to me that they had worked hard for many years to give their children better opportunities in life but, after many years of struggling and ‘the recession that we had to have’, their children were left without jobs or hope for the future and were becoming yet another statistic. What the former Labor government managed to achieve, even with the much-heralded accord, Working Nation, the infamous unfair dismissal laws and a so-called justice platform was a lost generation of youth—lost not to a war or a catastrophe but to the despair and hopelessness of unemployment. That was one of the many legacies left by the Hawke-Keating Labor government, and what will be wreaked upon us again if Labor, heaven forbid, are elected at the next federal election. It seems to me that some people have forgotten what it was like when unemployment figures were measured in double digits, mortgage rates were 17 per cent and business loan rates were above 20 per cent. People believed Mr ‘l-a-w law’ Keating, when he promised that he would deliver and that he was ‘bringing home the bacon’. Well, he did not bring home the bacon. In fact, the cupboard was left bare, with an $8 billion deficit to boot. Fast forward 12 years and there could not be a more contrasting picture. Unemployment continues to remain at record lows of around four per cent, and real wages have increased by 19.8 per cent. The Howard government not only has repaid Labor’s $96 billion legacy but is now saving for future generations. A strong economy creates optimism and hope for individuals. I am proud to have been a member of the Howard government, which has seen total spending on health increase from $17.9 billion in 1995-96 to $51.8 billion in 2007-08. As someone who places great importance on support for families, I am delighted to see GP and specialist bulk-billing rates at a national all-time record of 73.4 per cent. As a mother, it gives me great comfort to know that, under the Howard government policies, child immunisation rates have improved from 52 per cent in 1995—it is incredible and unbelievable to look back and see that only 52 per cent of children were immunised in 1995—to 91 per cent now. What a great policy, what a great achievement, by the Howard government. As a former aged-care nurse, I am delighted to see such tangible benefits to older Australians as the exponential increase in aged-care places which has occurred in the past decade, ageing in place and home care packages. The Medicare safety net and the increase in the Medicare rebate for GPs were policies that I had the great privilege of working on as Chair of the Government Committee on Health and Aged Care. I am also proud to have been involved with another hugely successful program, Work for the Dole. In my electorate, we have had some excellent community projects with this program, which have given participants valuable skills to assist them in moving into employment. I would like to congratulate David Garrard, his family and staff, in my electorate, for their recent win of the Supervisor of the Year award. The Howard government’s Investing in Our Schools program is another policy which I am proud to have contributed to. This program has funded schools where the states once again have failed. Mr Rudd talks the talk about the education revolution, but parents who have sacrificed and chosen to educate their children at an independent school are sweating even as we speak about the possibility of the return of Mark Latham’s infamous hit list. I believe one of the government’s greatest successes is its continued zero tolerance approach to combat illicit drugs through the Tough on Drugs initiative. Since its introduction in 1997, when it was launched in my electorate of Makin, this very important government initiative has seen more than $1.4 billion invested to combat the evils of illicit drugs and has prevented more than 14 tonnes of illicit drugs reaching our streets. I would like to congratulate Bronwyn Bishop on her recently released report entitled The winnable war on drugs: the impact of illicit drug use on families. We must continue to fight drugs in our community to stop the destruction of families and their lives. As the Prime Minister recently said in question time: We are making progress in the war against drugs, but we have a long way to go. The government will never give up in the fight against drugs. We will never adopt a harm minimisation strategy. We will always maintain a zero tolerance approach. I would also like to thank and congratulate my friend and colleague Ann Bressington, MLC for South Australia, for her work in this area. Very well done, Ann. Her comments are on the back of that terrific report. There are several challenges that we must confront if we are to provide opportunities for future generations. South Australians, as members of the downstream state, are parochial about their water security. That is our No. 1 priority. The Prime Minister’s $10 billion National Plan for Water Security, which was announced in January 2007, is the most significant reform of water management in our nation’s history. For over a century this issue has languished in the too-hard basket. It has taken the vision and courage of the Howard government to take action and end the political squabbling of the states and territories, which all have competing interests. It is so disappointing to me as a South Australian that the Labor Rann government has neglected South Australian water for too long. Another important challenge will be to keep employment high and continue to move towards full employment. A record 10½ million people are employed in Australia and more than 2.2 million new jobs have been created since the Howard government came into office. I said in 1996 that many people in Makin believed that the main achievement of the ACTU over the years has been the elevation of union officials into safe federal parliamentary seats. Rather than looking after the blue-collar workers and the unemployed, they looked after former ACTU presidents, treating the Labor front bench as a retirement home. Truer words have never been spoken. So if Mr Rudd wins the next election—heaven forbid—he will not have a say in the industrial relations policy or any other policy. Instead, it will be left to the union bosses, who still control the Labor Party. The existing 70 per cent of the current frontbench, who are likely to be joined by union bosses Greg Combet, Don Farrell, Mark Butler, Dougie Cameron and Bill Shorten at the next election, are keen once again to ‘run the country’, if I can quote Mr Combet. As I look back over the years, I cannot help but recall how my political journey began. Two catalysts got me involved in politics: firstly, the student campaign I was involved in to save Salisbury Campus after the announced closure by the then Minister for Employment, Education and Training, Simon Crean, and, secondly, the reversal of the longstanding ban against the film Salo. My very public stance against Salo led to my interest in classification issues, which I have continued to work on in my career in politics. Over the years, I have spoken up for my community, which continues to raise concerns about the content of films, television shows and video games. It has been a great honour to have been elected and to have served as chair of the coalition classification issues group during the last few years, and I thank my colleagues for their support. I strongly believe the community faces new concerns with the growth of reality television, and I hope that community standards are able to be most vigorously defended. Music video clips, incorrectly classified TV shows and movies and the continued exploitation of young women and men are exposing our children to inappropriate behaviour, which is then replicated in our schools. It has been a great honour to serve as the Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Publications. During this term we held an inquiry into the parliamentary paper series, as well as releasing a report entitled Printing standards for documents presented to parliament, which will be tabled in the House on Thursday. I have also enjoyed my time on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Procedure, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, the Trade Subcommittee and numerous backbench committees and my involvement in a number of reports. I am very proud of the inquiry that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Services held in the last term. The report produced by that inquiry, entitled Every picture tells a story, ultimately led to the changes in family law and the Child Support Agency. I acknowledge the great work of Julia Irwin, the member for Fowler, and also Jennie George, the member for Throsby, both members of that committee. I am also proud of the report entitled Road to recovery: report on the inquiry into substance abuse in Australian communities, which was produced by the same committee in August 2003. While our parliamentary work is important, looking after constituents at home is of the upmost importance and is my greatest priority. I am so proud of the achievements locally, in partnership with local people in my electorate of Makin. Without the hard work of all the volunteers, these projects would never have happened, so thank you to you all. I have also been reflecting on the major historical and significant events that have occurred since my election in 1996. Domestically, the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania rocked all Australians and led to the Howard government introducing tougher gun legislation. In 1998 the government went to the election with the most fundamental reform to the Australian taxation system: the introduction of the GST. Throughout the last decade, Australians have suffered the worst drought in 100 years, not to mention international economic recessions and the Asian economic crisis, which we were able to weather here in Australia due to great economic management by the Treasurer, Peter Costello—with a little bit of help from the Minister for Finance and Administration and Leader of the Senate, the Hon. Nick Minchin. Events also include the liberation of East Timor and, six years ago last week, the sixth anniversary of 9-11, when democracy was attacked when terrorists targeted innocent Americans at the World Trade Centre. Five years ago next month, 88 Australians lost their lives in the Bali bombings. On Boxing Day 2004, Australians were called into action when the Indonesian region was hit by a tsunami which killed over 200,000 people and devastated the country. Stuart Diver beat the odds in the Thredbo landslide. Brant Webb and Todd Russell, great survivors of the mining accident, captured the nation with their courage and determination in April and May last year. Sadly, Larry Knight lost his life in that accident. We had the terrorist bombings in London and the plane crash in Indonesia on 7 March this year, in which DFAT officials, Australian journalists and others were tragically killed and horrifically injured. As recently as Sunday, there was a plane crash in Phuket. These memories will always be with us as Australians and are among a range of memories from my time in federal politics. On a lighter note, most of my constituents would be aware of my admiration of the greatest team in the AFL, the Adelaide Crows. I congratulate Andrew ‘Bungy’ McLeod, who, last night, was named the All Australian Captain. I was looking forward to wearing my Crows scarf as I have in the past—and have been disciplined several times for doing so; however, we were robbed once again in our finals match this year. Rest assured that the Crows will be back in the hunt for the flag next year. Although I do not have my scarf, for the benefit of non-South Australian members I have circulated a photo of my three boys, with Graham wearing the blue, red and yellow colours of the Crows with Tony Modra. I have also distributed a photo of Graham with his lovely fiance, Lisa-Marie. Like everyone in this place, I would not be here today if it were not for the continuing support of members of the Makin FEC and of the Liberal Party. I have been extremely lucky to have had wonderful members and a local network of volunteers, who have worked tirelessly both for me as the federal member for Makin and for the Liberal Party. I would especially like to acknowledge and thank Colin and Mary Kelly; Ben and Jeanette Martin; Lawrie and Jan Moon; Tom Javor; Trevor Johnson, who was my first campaign manager together with John Dawkins and set the standards for the campaigns to follow; and Bob Day, our wonderful new Liberal candidate for Makin. I am absolutely certain that he and the Prime Minister and the coalition government will win the next election and that Bob will be on his way here to Canberra. I also acknowledge the Hon. John Dawkins MLC, South Australia, and Senator the Hon. Nick Minchin for their friendship, advice, hard work and support. All members would agree that we would never look after our constituents without the help, patience and care of our staff. I would like to thank my current staff members: Chris Evans, Todd Hacking, Jill Andrew, Shani Matheson and Maddie Jane. I would also like to thank my former staff members—in particular, Leonie Prosser-Haynes, Kirsty Haylock, Kim Murray, Alison Packer, Heidi Harris and the late Glenn Jarvis for their dedication and loyalty throughout their service. Glenn Jarvis passed away in July 2006 after losing a courageous battle against myeloid leukaemia. Glenn worked in my office for many years. He was loyal and such a wonderful electorate officer and friend and we all miss him greatly. He was a great loss not just to me and to his family but to the wider Makin community. I could not leave this place without paying tribute to a few of my closest colleagues and confidants who over many years have always been willing to listen to me and assist me in my parliamentary endeavours. I understand that this is dangerous but it is something I want to do. Thank you to my wonderful flatmate, De-Anne Kelly and also to Kay Elson, Jackie Kelly, Sophie Mirabella, Kerry Bartlett, Alan Cadman, Warren Entsch, Gary Hardgrave—a lot of Queenslanders here—Margaret May, Senator Grant Chapman, Don Randall, Senator Guy Barnett, who does a fabulous job for Tasmania, Bronwyn Bishop, Malcolm Turnbull, Peter Dutton, Greg Hunt, Louise Markus and Bruce Baird, who has done a fabulous job for Friends of Tourism. Well done and thank you, Bruce. Thank you also to Brendan Nelson, Julie Bishop, Barnaby Joyce, Steve Fielding, Brian Harradine—before he retired—Patrick Secker and the Barker FEC, who have been a great support to Makin. Thank you to all of my South Australian colleagues—in particular, Alexander Downer, arguably the greatest foreign minister in our history and a legend in his own time; Steve Ciobo; Alby Schultz—thank you, Alby—Kym Richardson; David Fawcett; Barry Wakelin; Andrew Southcott; and my paired senator for many years, Nick Minchin; and former Minister for the Arts and Sport, Rod Kemp—a legend in his own time and I thank him for his service to the country and hope that he enjoys his retirement from July next year. I congratulate Alan Ferguson on his election as President of the Senate, Christopher Pyne for his elevation to the ministry and Amanda Vanstone for her great achievements for South Australia. I also welcome our newest South Australian senators: Cory Bernardi, Simon Birmingham and Mary Jo Fisher. Thank you to all of you. I am now running out of time so the most important thing I have to do is thank the electors of Makin, the community clubs and sporting organisations, staff, Comcar drivers, security staff, the Clerk of the House, John Anderson, Jimmy Lloyd the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads, the Parliamentary Library Staff, the Hansard Staff and Pastor Rod Denton of the Clover Crest Baptist Church. But, most importantly, I want to thank my family. I would not be here without them. This speech is for my sons, Christopher, Graham and Michael, and for my husband, Don. Christopher, Graham and Michael were 5, 7 and 10 respectively when I was pre-selected. The going rate at that time for folding and stuffing envelopes was 50c per 1,000. So, guys, without you I would never have made it. For many days and many nights those kids worked their hearts and souls out for all of us. I say to my constituents and to our defence forces, our nurses, our doctors, our police, teachers and to everybody who contributes to the community and to our great Australian nation: it has been an honour and a privilege to serve you all. Thank you and God bless. 43 16:58:00 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 0 Mr WINDSOR —Before addressing the Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Dental Services) Bill 2007, I wish the member for Makin the very best for the future. Obviously, she has made in this parliament a great contribution to public life. The bill that is before the House today is about a very important issue, dental health, and makes modifications to the Medicare legislation. I bring to this debate a petition that has been initiated in my electorate but has been taken up in other electorates. It relates to the provision of dental care as part of the Medicare process. One of the things that have struck me about oral health, particularly during a period of time when the economy has seen massive surpluses from the budgetary process, is that essentially dental care has been neglected. Whether we like the blame game or not, we should review this issue, which concerns the state provision of dental care services to our constituents, who are members of the Australian public. The Prime Minister has made a number of comments recently about the performance of the states and he has made moves about this in Tasmania, and in the parliament he has endorsed moves over the local government initiatives in Queensland and the legislation for Aborigines in the Northern Territory, which is another one of the issues. So there have been a number of questions posed by the Commonwealth about responsibilities that have previously been those of the states. Rather than get into the issue of who is at fault here and into the two competing policy approaches that we spent most of today’s question time on and which we also discussed in the matters of public importance debate today, I would rather encourage both sides of the parliament to do what should be done on oral health. Oral health has been the responsibility of the states for many years other than during that period of time when the Keating Labor government initiated an assistance package for the states. There was debate today about whether it was axed or terminated but I do not want to go into that at this particular point in time. I think the important thing is that Medicare has evolved over a period of time and that process has not really included oral health, other than through the arrangements that have been put in place in recent years whereby people with chronic diseases have references from their medical practitioners that they need additional assistance. Even today’s legislation refers to the fact that it is only by references for people having a chronic illness, a process that involves patients’ medical practitioners, that people can access the Medicare arrangements. So even though I will be supporting this legislation, I see it as not going far enough to deal with the total problem. It is not good enough for both sides of a parliament of a developed nation in the economic shape that we are in—and I congratulate the government for its efforts as to some of the budgetary measures that have taken place and for the massive surplus that is there now—to just accept that some tinkering at the edges of oral health is in fact good enough. We need to include oral health in with all other bodily health. Irrespective of whether it has been a constitutional anomaly or an arrangement between the states and the Commonwealth as to who has been responsible in the past, we are living in a new century and to leave oral health out of all other bodily health functions in the Medicare arrangements is, in my view, an absolute disgrace. It is disgraceful that in a developed nation of this size 650,000 Australians are not having their teeth looked after adequately! If we leave this parliament—and there are people leaving this parliament as they are giving their final speeches—quite comfortable that 650,000 Australians, in a nation that has had enormous growth and prosperity in recent years, cannot have basic dental care treatment provided under our health system, that is an absolute disgrace. As I said, I will be supporting the bill before the House because it does raise the bar slightly, but when you are coming from a very low base to start with a slight rise really does not achieve much at all. I will be watching very closely to see what the Labor Party does on this issue. If there were ever a need to spend money on the provision of a basic government service, surely this would be it. It is a great shame on all of us to see people in Australia—people who have worked hard for Australia, people on pensions, young people, middle-aged people and old people—quite deliberately not eating some particular foods and quite deliberately not going to the dentist because they cannot afford it. To say that we are a greatly developed nation while we have that shame sitting there is a disgrace. Irrespective of the cost, that should be the function of government. We have spent the last decade or two removing government from various functions, but if the major function of government is not to provide basic health services to the constituency I do not know what is. It is always No. 1 on an election platform. But I do not see this particular piece of legislation addressing it, because it still revolves around a process involving medical practitioners and chronic illness for people to have access to basic dental care. There are reasons that we are given from time to time as to why it cannot be included, and one reason is that it will be a massive cost; it will cost billions of dollars to achieve. But today we are talking about health insurance and the Medicare arrangements, and a dollar a week from every Australian would raise a billion dollars in a year. I would have thought that that sort of magnitude of spending, given the massive surpluses that have been in the budgetary processes for some years, would be quite small to actually address this issue over a period of time—a very basic issue of dental care as part of our health system. To suggest that that is not part of our responsibility in this place, because it is something that the states have looked after for some years, is wrong. Obviously, they have been incompetent or they cannot afford it. But if we are in an era when the Commonwealth can interfere where it sees a need, there is no greater need in terms of the delivery of health care, in my view, than basic oral health. Oral health, and there are a number of doctors in this place, and I am pleased to see there is one here now— DYW Burke, Tony, MP Mr Burke —A good doctor. 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr WINDSOR —Yes, he is a good doctor, as the member interjects—and a good member of parliament, if I may suggest. Obviously, neglecting oral health can and does lead to other complications. If there are other complications, the patient enters the health care system and Medicare arrangements kick in. I have said that I will support this legislation, but it seems fanciful when you read in the minister’s second reading speech that it is for those who have chronic illness. In this bill, we are presenting to the Australian public a magnanimous gesture of money for those who have chronic illness. If they have a chronic illness that is left unattended, then, quite obviously, they will enter the medical system and Medicare will provide. So, in a sense, the bill does not really provide anything that would not be provided if you left the chronic illness alone and did not tend to the person: they would end up in hospital and Medicare arrangements would apply. I think we have to go much further than that and include normal oral health in Medicare arrangements. That is not to say that cosmetic dental health should be included; I believe people should pay for that. But, if there is normal treatment which in the long term can produce enormous saving to the health budget, we should look seriously at it and provide the funding. I am hopeful that one of the major parties will take that issue to the election, because it is something that is much needed and it has the potential to be a vote winner with the public. Mrs Ruth Mathews is a constituent in my electorate. I do not know how old Mrs Mathews is but she probably would be in her 70s. She has been a very active woman all her life and her husband, Charles, is equally active. Mrs Mathews has taken it upon herself to create a petition. I think something like 4,000 signatures have been presented to the parliament to this date. This lady is not a wealthy woman, but she has taken it upon herself to stand in the streets of Tamworth to get people to sign the petition. She has a solution to the problem. She believes, and I believe, that people would be prepared to pay something for the solution. People are not just demanding of government; they would give up something to have dental care provided to everybody—to their grandchildren and their grandparents. I have questioned many people in my electorate, and they would rather see something like this taken care of than get a tax cut. We have had plenty of room for tax cuts in recent years, because of the surplus, the economic management et cetera—we have heard it all before. People are saying that they would rather have more money spent on health and dental care than receive those tax cuts, so I think it is important to take those views on board. I return to the petition of Mrs Mathews, which says: TO THE HONOURABLE THE SPEAKER AND MEMBER-S OF THE HOUSE OF REPRE-SEN-TATIVES ASSEMBLED IN PARLIAMENT. The Petition of Citizens of Australia. Draws attention of the House of the inadequacy of DENTAL HEALTH CARE which can lead to life threatening diseases. Your petitioners therefore request the House that we, the undersigned, implore you to introduce a National Dental Health Scheme, as a matter of urgency, to be funded by a 1% levy of taxable income, this amount to be added on to the Medicare levy. I do not know the mathematics, but my guess would be that a one per cent levy would raise an enormous amount of money, far in advance of what is actually required to address the problem. Mrs Mathews is quite simply suggesting, and I think the majority of Australians would support her, that we will pay. We have a problem. The states have not taken care of it in the past. Keating had a go for a while and then it was axed, or terminated, depending on which side of the fence you want to listen to. The problem is back: 650,000 Australians cannot get basic dental care. We have heard about the waiting lists. We have heard about people with chronic illness and we have heard about people with pliers. A lady in Uralla, in my electorate, this year pulled out a tooth with a pair of pliers. So the problem is there, and rather than find out who is to blame or who has the biggest amount of money in town, whether $290 million equals $384 million or vice versa—the complexities of these arguments do not fascinate the electorate. People want the problem solved. They see the role of government as providing the basic needs of constituents. As members of parliament we all know that health is No. 1, health is No. 2, health is No. 3 in terms of issues of importance. This is an enormously important issue that can be addressed, given our budgetary circumstances, and should be addressed. Even if it cannot be addressed under those budgetary circumstances, I guess the message of Mrs Mathews is that people are prepared to pay a bit more if basic services are provided. In my view, there is an underlying reason why these services are not being provided: neglect. The Commonwealth does have responsibility for this issue, which cannot fobbed off to the states—that is, dental training. Some years ago, Dr Alec Noble, who is a retired dentist in my electorate, came to me and indicated—and I forget the actual numbers—that about 60 new dentists come into the market in New South Wales each year. Some of them come from overseas and will return to their places of origin, probably 15 will go into research and the majority of those left will practise in the major metropolitan areas, and there are very few who come into the regional areas, in this case, of New South Wales. They can go anywhere in Australia, but there are about 60 who come onto the market in New South Wales each year. I think the average age of dentists in Australia at the moment is probably higher than the average age of farmers, which is about 56, so there is a real problem in relation to placement. If, suddenly, the basic oral treatment became a basic Medicare item, where would people get treatment? Where are the dentists who could actually provide that treatment? I think that whatever is going on is a fairly cute reaction to a problem that has been there for many years but not addressed. We cannot allow these people to access Medicare because it will show a failure in the training of dentists, and that will create a greater problem. That in itself is a very distressing conclusion to arrive at. So what do we do? The government has, to its credit, initiated training. We not only have a lack of numbers being trained; we also have a lack of professionals wanting to go back to regional areas. We all know the arguments that a regionally trained doctor will more likely find school teachers— HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr Katter —Hear, hear! 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr WINDSOR —The member for Kennedy has arrived. I must say, what a lovely set of teeth he has! HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr Katter —All the better to bite you with. 10000 Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! Honourable member for Kennedy! 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr WINDSOR —Yes, I think it is highly out of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, that someone should suggest that people would bite each other in this place! Obviously in regional areas there is a double issue in that a lot of the people who are trained may not go back into country areas to practise, even though a lot of the need is there. The government has initiated a new dental school at Charles Sturt University, and I congratulate the government for that. That is exactly what is needed, but it is not enough and it reflects the recognition of neglect over the last decade, at least. There is a need for more dental schools. I know that the University of New England—and this is not an ad for their cause, even though I am a great supporter of the initiative—is negotiating with the University of Sydney and others for the extension of that sort of program. We must start training more people, because it is quite obvious that if 650,000 people were suddenly allowed into the dental chair there would not be enough dentists to deal with the problem. That is a problem that has been aided and abetted—partly because of the costs of the degree and other factors as well—at the Commonwealth level. The message I would send is that, while this is an issue, there is a solution. We have to stop blaming each other for this issue—the states blaming the Commonwealth. It should be addressed. It is a basic issue of the provision of services to people within all our communities. If this election goes past and the issue is ignored or tinkered with with a mere $200 million, $300 million or $400 million over a period of years, it will be an offence to all Australians, particularly our elderly Australians, and a recognition that we are prepared to neglect those who have devoted years of work to the development of this nation. I think it is an issue that we should take on board and address immediately. (Time expired) 47 17:18:00 Washer, Dr Mal, MP 84F Moore LP 1 0 Dr WASHER —I thank the member for New England; I share his passion about dental care. That is terrific. The purpose of the Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Dental Services) Bill 2007 is to amend the Health Insurance Act 1973 in order to increase access to dental treatment under Medicare for people with chronic conditions and complex care needs. In the 2007-08 budget, the Commonwealth government announced an expansion of the current enhanced primary care dental items to provide higher Medicare rebates and more services to eligible patients. From 1 November 2007, eligible patients will be able to access Medicare benefits for dental services of up to $4,250—including any Medicare safety net benefits, where applicable—over two consecutive calendar years. This arrangement further enhances the measure announced in the budget which provides for patients to receive a diagnostic consultation and a maximum of $2,000 in Medicare benefits for dental treatment each calendar year. A limit of $4,250 over two calendar years will give more flexibility for patients to receive dental assessment and treatment when they require services. This amount may be used for any combination of dental services covered by Medicare under this measure, depending on the clinical needs of the patient. This bill also enables Medicare benefits to be paid for the supply of dental prostheses, such as dentures, under the new dental items. This will be of particular help for older Australians, many of whom have chronic and complex conditions and require dentures to eat a balanced and healthy diet. The Medicare dental items will be targeted at people with chronic conditions and complex care needs where the person’s oral health is impacting on, or is likely to impact on, their general health. To be eligible, a person needs to be managed under a GP management plan and team care arrangements. Residents of aged care facilities can also access the dental items if they are managed by a GP under a multidisciplinary care plan. All patients will need to be referred to a dentist by their GP. People with chronic conditions, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer, often have poor oral health, which can adversely affect their condition or their general health, so this bill will certainly address this. However, it is generally accepted that you cannot be healthy without oral health. Historically, we have separated medicine from dentistry, and many people are suffering ill health as a result of this terrible decision. If you have infected gums or gingivitis, you can have episodes of bacteria flowing through-out your blood stream. Porphyromonas gingivalis, an important bacteria involved in periodontal disease, has been linked to cardiovascular disease. This bacterium has four identifiable genes which enable it to invade and infect human arterial cells. Oral pathogens can also damage heart valves, infect prosthetic joints and increase the risk of pneumonia—all potentially life-threatening conditions. The Australian Dental Association has challenged that the bill implies poor oral health is important only insofar as it affects a chronic medical condition or its management. This is certainly not the intent. The Medicare dental items will target people with chronic conditions and complex care needs where the person’s oral health is impacting on, or is likely to impact on, their general health. The importance of this bill is that it helps the most vulnerable. The most vulnerable, often people in our aged care system, do not necessarily get onto waiting lists for the state government to look after them. Many of them have chronic conditions and complex care needs. Certainly the dental treatments of those that are financially disadvantaged and that are currently sitting on lengthy state dental waiting lists are important. However, the states need to pick up their act. The Commonwealth has committed long-term, record funding through the Australian health care agreements. States and territories will receive up to $42 billion under the 2003-2008 agree-ment to meet their commitments including delivery of dental services. Currently the Commonwealth is directly involved in oral health services through veterans affairs programs, providing dental care for around 300,000 people; the Armed Forces and Army Reserve Dental Scheme; university training for dentists, dental therapists, dental hygienists and oral health therapists—this was further enhanced in the recent budget with a new school of dentistry and oral health; dental scholarships for Indigenous students; subsidised drugs prescribed by dentists under the PBS; dental services provided through community controlled Aboriginal medical services; specialist oral surgery and oral radiography through Medicare; the cleft palate scheme; and dental services on Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The Commonwealth also subsidises private health benefits. The Commonwealth’s 30 to 40 per cent private health insurance rebate has enabled private health insurance to be more affordable for many Australians. This has certainly been reflected in the figures. Statistics released last month by the Private Health Insurance Administration Council showed private health hospital insurance has increased for the eighth consecutive quarter with more than 76,000 additional people covered in the June quarter. A record 9.7 million people, or 46.1 per cent of Australians, are covered for private health insurance general treatment, including dental treatment. In the 2007 March quarter over six million dental services were claimed with over $300 million in benefits being paid. The Commonwealth also recently contributed to an innovation that could have an enormous positive impact on the dental care of Australians, especially those with complex needs such as those in our aged care system. Dr Patrick Shanahan’s innovative antibacterial gel, DentaMed, received $64,000 through an Ausindustry Commercialising Emerg-ing Technologies grant. Historically, the prevention of dental disease has relied on the mechanical removal of plaque using dental floss, a toothbrush and abrasive toothpaste, not on antibacterials. Toothpastes are formulated primarily to improve tooth appearance, freshen the breath and deliver fluoride benefits. They have minimal antibacterial activity. There are several antibacterials that do have an effect on plaque and oral pathogens. These antibacterial mouthwashes are often used immediately after brushing to improve oral health. But dental research has shown they have limited benefit when used like this. The abrasives in toothpastes temporarily remove the tooth pellicle, preventing attachment of the antibacterials and, because these mouthwashes and toothpastes are chemically different, the residual effect neutralises the antibacterials. Developed and refined over a period of 18 years, DentaMed gel’s technology synergistically uses the saliva, antibacterials, fluoride and a nanoparticle healing and coating agent to maintain the whole mouth. The saliva is the body’s natural mouth protector, coating the whole mouth, including the teeth, with a protein-like material. The gel’s delivery system retains the saliva and uses it to attach the antibacterials. The introduction of nanotechnology further increases these benefits. The nanoparticle chitosan—sourced, incidentally, from crayfish shells—delivers two critical functions. In addition to accelerating healing, it provides a slow-release system for the antibacterials, zinc and fluoride. This provides continuous protection between treatments. The product has undergone successful clinical trials and is now readily available. It will greatly assist not only those in care and their carers but anyone wanting to improve their dental health. It is thought that around 200,000 patients will access the new enhanced primary care dental items over the first four years of this measure, with an estimated cost of around $384.6 million. There are concerns that some patients may not receive dental treatment under the scheme as most people under a GP management plan could be eligible—around 400,000 patients. However, if the uptake is greater than expected the department has advised that outlays would be increased to cover the level of take-up, much as is the case with any other Medicare item. The expansion of the enhanced primary care dental items proposed by this bill will dramatically improve the dental and therefore overall health of many Australians. I certainly hope that we can get medicine and dentistry back together again. 49 17:27:00 Katter, Bob, MP HX4 Kennedy IND 0 0 Mr KATTER —In my 33 years, or whatever it is that I have been a member of parliament, and in my 62 years on the planet in my homeland—which is the mid-west area of North Queensland, the area between the Mount Isa badlands, if you like, the mineralised areas, and the coast—we have always had a dentist in Cloncurry and a dentist in Hughenden. And in my time as a member of parliament for the area we have always had at least one dentist to cover Julia Creek and Richmond. So there have always been at the very least three dentists on the ground in that area. I cannot remember whether it was last year or the year before—but it certainly went into last year—when we had not a single dentist covering those 10,000 people. Since Hughenden is almost 300 kilometres away from Charters Towers, people in Hughenden would have to travel a 500-kilometre round trip to see the nearest dentist. As for Cloncurry, it is 110 or 120 kilometres to Mount Isa, and people would be looking at a 250-kilometre round trip—most certainly over a 200-kilometre round trip—to Mount Isa to go to a dentist. This has never been the case before. The money market of course is always a good indicator and I was told the other day by a very authoritative person that a new doctor starting up in Mount Isa gets paid $125,000; a new dentist starting up in Mount Isa gets paid $230,000—and this represents the desperate shortages that we have in Northern Australia. As the honourable member for Herbert will tell you, there are nearly one million people living in North Queensland, and we quite rightly will take out the premiership in the NRL and so we should. We are an area on the rise. We are moving forward with great aggression, in population and on every other front. Per head of population, we have maybe a quarter the number of dentists that the rest of Australia has. Our situation with doctors is that—and I do not want to be quoted on the figures—where the rest of Australia have one doctor per 400 people, in North Queensland we have one doctor per 2½ thousand people. That is a huge difference. We thank this government very much. We thank the coalition government of Queensland and also the subsequent Labor government for assisting us to get the medical school in Townsville at James Cook University, the first medical school in some 44 years. We acknowledge the hard work of the member for Herbert. I had the privilege of forming the committee which  subsequently secured the medical school. While in four years time we will have 150 doctors coming on stream each year—and this will address the lack of doctors in North Queensland—it will be a decade before we really come to grips with the problem. With dentistry, we have no answer at all. All of us at one time or another have been beaten down with a terrible toothache. That certainly is terrible, particularly when you get it on Friday night and you cannot get to a dentist until Monday. A lot of these people do not have vehicles and they most certainly do not have the money to jump on a bus—buses are not all that frequent through the area anyway—to go to the coast or near to the coast to get dental attention. So our situation in dentistry is diabolical and the necessity for a dental school in North Queensland is an absolute imperative. Once again, paying very great tribute to that wonderful Executive Dean of Medicine, Health and Molecular Science at James Cook University, Dr Ian Wronski, one of the giants of the profession in Australia and one of the great giants of all time of rural medicine in Australia, we would urge the government to listen to Ian on the issue of the absolute necessity for a dental school in northern Australia. Nearly one million of us live in North Queensland and we have to send our sons and our daughters down to Brisbane to become dentists. The chances of them coming back to North Queensland are very small indeed. So we plead with the government to act just as they did in the case of the JCU medical school—and we thank them for that—to act similarly in the area of dentistry. We must add to this the situation concerning the elderly, which was referred to by my honourable colleague from New England. There are difficulties, which I have referred to previously, for a person living in the mid-west region or even living in substantial towns on the coast and on the Atherton Tableland, trying to get in to see a dentist—it is like trying to win the casket in these situations. In fact, on a number of occasions my own office simply could not get appointments anywhere within the space of weeks—including in the coastal towns of Innisfail and the Atherton Tableland area, as well as Charters Towers and Mount Isa. So we have had our dentistry done in Canberra because it is the only place we could get in. It is infinitely more difficult for our elder citizens (a) to afford it and (b) to physically secure it. So there are myriad problems of distance, isolation, the cost of the actual medical care and also getting to where the medical care can be provided. We are looking at 150 bucks for a round trip in a bus from Hughenden to Charters Towers to see the dentist—an older person is looking at $150 on the cost of the dental problem. In Normanton, we have had enormous difficulties. There were a couple of notorious cases where the dental problem became a very serious health problem. In one case it overlapped and was attributed to cancer, which I did not think was a medical reality, but we were assured by the doctors that it was, because the issue had been left completely neglected and it may well have been that it was cancer in the first place. A dentist would have picked it up but of course that person had no dental care whatsoever. They were waiting for the dentist to arrive two or three months later. It was about six months by the time he got to see the dentist and it was too late to save him. We applaud what the government are doing here, but we plead with them to look at the real problem for our older citizens, even if they are in big cities. The northern beaches area of Townsville is a classic case in point where it is very difficult for people, retirees in the main, to get back to Townsville for dental care. Even though they are only two hours drive away, many of them are not of an age where they are able to drive any more. Many of them do not have cars and have to rely upon relatives or the generosity of neighbours to get them back to Townsville. But there is no way that, if we have a northern medical school, dentists will not be moving into areas such as the northern beaches area of Townsville. They will have to go there because they cannot all sit on their seats in Townsville; they will move into other areas. We plead with the government to look at the very serious nature of this problem. We call ourselves a developed country but, in fact, when I was a young man, we had an aid program—I am trying desperately to think of the name but it is not coming to me—whereby we brought people out to Australia from developing countries in Africa and Asia and paid for their training here as doctors, dentists or as members of other professions, and they went home to practise in their own countries. Eighteen of the 28 doctors in the mid-west—Mount Isa and the Gulf Country—were not from Australia; they were from Africa and Asia. So, whereas when I was a young man we used to train their people in our country, they now have to train people to provide us with doctors and dentists. The last time I did the figures, 18 of the 28 doctors fell into that category. A lot of them have enormous difficulties communicating in English but it is not their fault. In some cases their degrees are very deficient; in other cases their degrees, I am informed, are better than our degrees. Be that as it may, there is something dreadfully wrong with a country that cannot supply its own dentists and doctors. If Australian cities have shortages of doctors and dentists and difficulties with supplying those services, those shortages and difficulties in country Australia are infinitely worse. For the near million of us who live in North Queensland, with the nearest dental school 2,000 kilometres away, it simply is not possible for us to get those dentists to come back and practise in North Queensland. No matter how beautiful and paradisiacal North Queensland is, we still cannot entice them back. We plead with the government to realise that Ian Wronski is right. There absolutely must be a dental school in Northern Australia for the exact same reasons there had to be a medical school there. I conclude on this note. When I spoke to Mike Horan, who was a minister in Queensland, he said, ‘Look, Bob, the answer can only be provided by a North Queensland medical school.’ I said, ‘I absolutely agree.’ I also spoke to Michael Wooldridge, whom I often called the ‘angel of the bush’—and, because he did so much for rural medicine in Australia, I think he deserves that title. Michael Wooldridge said, ‘The problem for Australia would be solved substantially by having a medical school in Townsville because at least 40 per cent of this problem of doctor shortage is a Queensland problem.’ He said that it was a problem to a lesser extent in rural Victoria and rural New South Wales and not so much a problem in Western Australia and South Australia. I do not know whether that was true, but both of those ministers at that time agreed that the solution to the problem of the shortage of doctors in rural Australia would be substantially solved by putting a medical school in Townsville. Exactly the same arguments apply to dentistry. The situation is—I will use myself as an example—that my office in North Queensland simply could not get me an appointment and had to make one here in Canberra. We plead with the government to take those things into consideration. An election is coming up and we would like some sort of commitment to having a dental hospital in Northern Australia. The government still has time to do it and to be applauded for doing it. As I stand here today, applauding Michael Wooldridge as the angel of the bush, I would like to be able to say the same thing about our current Minister for Health and Ageing, Mr Abbott. I give him the opportunity of doing that before the government ceases to be the government in the sense that there will be an election. 52 17:42:00 Ticehurst, Kenneth, MP 00ANF Dobell LP 1 0 Mr TICEHURST —The purpose of the Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Dental Services) Bill 2007 is to amend the Health Insurance Act 1973. This will implement the 2007-08 budget measure to increase access to dental treatment under Medicare for people with chronic conditions and complex care needs. The Commonwealth government has announced an expansion of the current enhanced primary care dental items to provide higher Medicare rebates and more services to eligible patients. The measure is targeted at patients with chronic conditions—for instance, cancer, diabetes and cardiovascular disease—who also have complex care needs, such as requiring care across a team of health or care pro-viders. Patients whose oral health is impacting on or likely to impact on their general health will be referred by their GP to a dentist who is registered with Medicare Australia. In order to be eligible, these patients must have a GP management plan as well as a team care arrangement in place. However, for residents in aged care facilities their GP must have contributed to the multidisciplinary care plan prepared for the resident by that facility. It is estimated that approximately 200,000 patients will benefit from this measure over the first four years, as they will have access to dental services provided in the community. From 1 November 2007, eligible patients will be able to access Medicare benefits for dental services of up to $4,250, including the Medicare safety net benefits they may be entitled to over two consecutive calendar years. This limit was introduced following consultation with stakeholders after the budget was handed down, providing more flexibility for patients to receive dental assessment and treatment when they require those services. Patients will be able to access benefits for any combination of dental assessment and treatment services covered by the new dental items, based on a patient’s clinical needs. These new dental items include services from dentists and dental specialists, and dental prostheses. The new Medicare items are likely to include dental assessments, preventative services, extractions, fillings and other restorative work—for example, crowns, bridges, implants and dentures. Dental services that are of a purely cosmetic nature will not be covered by a Medicare rebate, which will ensure that the people who really need dental health care will be able to receive the treatment. This arrangement further enhances the $377.6 million over four years announced in the budget, which provided for patients to receive an initial diagnostic consultation and a maximum of $2,000 in Medicare benefits for dental treatment each calendar year. The measure now represents a $384.6 million investment over four years. The new dental items will be introduced under the Medicare Benefits Schedule, replacing the current enhanced primary care dental items. It is expected that GPs and patients will find it easier to locate a dentist as more dentists are willing to participate in this scheme under these enhanced arrangements. The Department of Health and Ageing is also working with the professional bodies representing dentists and GPs to improve information resources and to improve communication between individual dentists and GPs at a local level. Patients who access this scheme will greatly benefit from the increased communication between doctors and dentists locally, as it will provide for appropriate referrals and regular feedback between dentists and GPs on clinical matters. In fact, all patients will greatly benefit from the increased collaboration between doctors and dentists, as doctors will now have greater understanding of oral health and will be able to make more accurate referrals to help their patients. Many patients with chronic and complex conditions are often really ill and are undergoing other medical treatments which may not be subsidised by Medicare, creating a large financial cost for patients and their families. This bill will ensure that these patients who also need dental health care will have access to it at an affordable price, helping to relieve some of their financial burden. Under this scheme, the only costs eligible patients will need to pay is the gap, which Medicare does not cover and which will depend on how the dentist chooses to bill for their services. If the dentist bulk-bills, the patient will not be charged a copayment for dental services covered by Medicare. If the dentist charges above the Medicare rebate, any out-of-pocket costs for those services will count towards the patient’s or the family’s threshold under the extended Medicare safety net. Once a patient or family reaches the annual safety net threshold, 80 per cent of the out-of-pocket costs will be met by the government under the Medicare safety net. This will apply up to the limit. To further help patients, Medicare Australia will operate a telephone helpline to provide patients and dentists with a progressive total of dental benefits paid to those patients. Dentists will also be required to provide patients with a quote or cost estimate prior to commencing a course of treatment, to further assist patients to understand the potential cost of treatment. Patients will also have the option of choosing whether they will use Medicare or their private health insurance ancillary cover to pay for these services. However, patients cannot use their private health insurance ancillary cover to top up the Medicare rebate paid for the services. While topping-up is not permitted for an individual service, where a patient has reached the two-year benefit limit for dental treatment services under Medicare, additional dental services can be claimed under private health insurance arrangements, within the rules and limits of the person’s ancillary cover. In Australia, the different levels of government have different and complementary roles in assisting Australians with their dental health. The Australian government and the states and territories must do their fair share for the system to work properly. The planning and provision of public dental services, including services to concessional patients and children, is the state and territory governments’ responsibility. Currently, all states and territories have programs of universally available, free or reduced-cost school based dental care, ensuring that all schoolchildren have access to dental services at affordable prices for their families. State and territory governments are also allowed to levy a patient charge for dental services which varies across Australia. There is no denying that there are presently lengthy waiting lists for some public dental programs. However, this situation could readily be changed were the states and territories to fund these services adequately, as is their acknowledged responsibility. In 1994-96, the Commonwealth Dental Health Program provided limited funding of $278 million over four years to the states and territories to reduce excessive waiting times and to improve access to public services. While the program was part of the Australian Labor Party’s election platform in 1993, Labor made no commitment to keep the program beyond 1996. With evidence of substantial reductions in waiting times around the country, the government took the decision to abolish the dental program in the 1996-97 budget. Funding ceased from 1 January 1997. Beyond the one-off nature of the program, there were problems with it. Most significantly, the states and territories were not encouraged to invest in improving their public dental services. The states and territories continued to shift their own dollars from dental care to other areas, effectively cost-shifting public dental health to the Australian government. The most recent figures from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare show that state funding for dental care has increased from $373 million in 1999-2000 to $503 million in 2004-05. Federal Labor, on the other hand, do not have a coherent dental policy. They should be supporting the government’s approach and encouraging their state and territory mates to take their share of responsibility for dental services rather than trying to fob off people in need on the Commonwealth government. Federal Labor continue to makes excuses for the failure of the state and territory governments, which just shows again that they are patsies for the states, as well as, of course, for the union movement. On the Central Coast, the federal government has recently funded places for the Bachelor of Oral Health at the Ourimbah campus of the University of Newcastle. The number of new enrolments for this course has increased from 55 in 2005 to 77 in 2007. A total of 180 students are currently enrolled in the course. These university places are greatly benefiting the residents of the Central Coast, as they are offering students the opportunity to study dentistry on the coast, with students conducting practical work experience with local dentists. The Ourimbah campus is also home to a fantastic initiative funded by the federal government: an oral health clinic run by the staff and students of the Bachelor of Oral Health. The oral health care clinic provides students studying dentistry with the unique opportunity to gain on-the-ground experience of working in a dental clinic in a supported learning environment. The clinic also greatly benefits the local community as it provides free check-ups and teeth cleaning to concession card holders, which helps them to prevent tooth decay. These services are also offered to the general public for a small fee. By enabling third-year university students to carry out these vital consultations it enables local families to keep their teeth healthy at affordable prices while providing students with experience and confidence for when they graduate. During these consultations students are also able to identify any other oral health issues patients may have. For instance, if a tooth needs a filling they are able to recommend that patients go and see a dentist. A few months ago I had the pleasure of visiting this centre with the Minister for Science, Education and Training to show her first-hand what a great facility the Ourimbah campus has, as well as the vital work they do in our community. I would like to congratulate the staff and students of the oral health unit for doing a tremendous job. This bill also provides another avenue for dental services for people with chronic and complex conditions, which will be particularly helpful for those who would otherwise have to wait for services. In order to accurately assess who will be eligible for these provisions, patients must be referred to a dentist by their GP, as they are the primary care provider and care coordinator for these patients. Other Medicare items targeted to people with chronic conditions and complex care needs—for example, allied health services such as podiatry and physiotherapy—will also operate on referral from a GP. Professional associations representing dentists and GPs are working together to ensure that GPs have a better understanding of oral health issues and the relationship between oral health and general health. The new Medicare dental items will replace three dental items introduced in 2004 under the enhanced primary care arrangements. The existing Medicare dental items allow eligible patients access to up to three dental services per calendar year, with a Medicare rebate of $77.95 per service. This new scheme will entitle eligible patients to unlimited visits to the dentist. This will effectively increase the access to dental health services for patients, at more affordable prices. It will also greatly benefit patients as they will have more flexibility to get dental work done under the Medicare system, which was previously not something afforded to them. The new schedule of Medicare dental items will more closely reflect the way that dental providers currently practise and bill private patients and veterans. Mr Deputy Speaker Somlyay, it was great to see that under your chairmanship the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing inquired into health funding and released The blame game report, which made some important recommendations. Recommendation 3 has been taken up by the government in this bill. That recommendation was: The Australian Government should supplement state and territory funding for public dental services so that reasonable access standards for appropriate services are maintained, particularly for disadvantaged groups. This should be linked to the achievement of specific service outcomes. It is great news that a report that has only recently been handed down has already been enacted into legislation. In closing, the Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Dental Services) Bill 2007 will greatly benefit the people of Australia with chronic and complex conditions who need dental health care. These items will provide a significant increase in Medicare benefits for eligible patients and will make it more attractive for dentists to provide a wider range of dental care to more patients. The new items will be more consistent with the way that dentists practise and will cover a broader range of services to help ensure that Australian people have access to dental health care. I commend this bill to the House. 56 17:56:00 Jenkins, Harry, MP HH4 Scullin ALP 0 0 Mr JENKINS —The opposition opposes the Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Dental Services) Bill 2007 because we believe that it is not the right way for the Commonwealth government to involve itself in dental health. Mr Deputy Speaker Somlyay, I note that the member for Dobell made mention of a report entitled The blame game. I am wondering whether, as the member for Fairfax, you would claim the credit that was given by the member for Dobell, because the quote that he gave is open to interpretation. While this piece of legislation talks about those patients with oral health problems arising from chronic health problems, it does not necessarily mean that those who find themselves in disadvantaged economic circumstances are being totally catered for. That is the greatest concern that the opposition has with this piece of legislation. In a debate like this, often too much attention is paid to the detail and specificity of the piece of legislation concerned. One can still be relevant to the piece of legislation if one steps back from it and poses this question: could the expenditure—and with this piece of legislation we are talking about an expenditure in the order of $380 million over four years—perhaps be targeted better? A debate like this is also the time to look at the effort of the Commonwealth government in relation to the problem before the chamber. I was a little surprised at the figures about trends in dental care expenditure. While today there has been a great deal of argy-bargy about public health and whether this is totally the province of the states or whether it should be a shared responsibility, we have not really looked at the way in which oral health expenditure is apportioned. I was a little surprised at the figures in Australia’s health 2006, the publication of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. In table S37, the institute indicates that total recurrent health expenditure is in the order of $69.8 billion. The institute indicates that individuals contribute $14.486 billion of this expenditure. By my calculations that is in the order of 20.7 per cent. But the institute indicates that in the year 2002-03 individuals contributed $2,969 million of the $4,362 million spent on oral health. So individuals contribute 68 per cent of the cost towards oral health. It is something that has developed over time, but the contribution by individuals, especially since the creation of Medicare, has been a considerably larger percentage of the expenditure than for any other aspect of health expenditure. Another problem, if we look at the contributions by the federal government, is that we see the largest slice of contribution by them to oral health is the 30 per cent private health rebate. In the earlier debate on a matter of public importance, the member for Boothby I think said that that was in the order of $400 million. That is a considerable amount a year, but does it really go to those whom we would expect the government to target? Therein lies the real problem in the way in which the resources for oral health have been allocated at a federal level. This debate has gone on for many years, but when the government were challenged that this perhaps showed an inconsistency in their stance that dental health was not their problem they said, ‘It’s a state problem; we don’t get involved.’ When we indicated by way of debate, quite rightly, that through the 30 per cent private health rebate of course the Commonwealth government are involved, Minister Abbott, the Minister for Health and Ageing, came in and said: ‘We are involved. We’re involved in oral health; we’re involved in dental health through the 30 per cent rebate.’ So why can’t we see the extension of that into public dental health? Because traditionally, before the rebate, the Commonwealth were not involved in oral health. Another little sleeper that is even more disturbing is the way in which the Commonwealth government contributes to people’s health expenses—that is, the health rebate, which is paid back to people at tax time if they are over a threshold. In 2002, John Spencer from Adelaide university did a paper, ‘What options do we have for organising, providing and funding better public dental care?’ He produced a graph—figure 4, ‘Public subsidy for dental expenses taxation rebates, private dental insurance rebates and public dental care’. He showed the public dollar spending per household in dollar units against income groups of various householders. Regrettably, the graph showed that the highest income households had the highest public dollar spending per household. Why was that? Because of the combination of the private dental insurance rebate and the dental expenses taxation rebate. So in this 1998-99 graph it was in the order of $70 a household for households on about $120,000; the figure for a household on $35,000 was in the order of $35; and for a household on $0 to $10,000 the public dollar spending was a little over $50. But this begs the question: are we getting the assistance packages wrong? Have we skewed them so that we are not properly directing the public resource towards those that are most in need? As I said, I acknowledge that dental health for Australian families, on the basis that private expenditure on oral health is something like 68 per cent of total expenditure, is a very difficult impost. So there is no threat to the rebates that I spoke about. But, when we are in a debate like this, we should step back and think about what the resources that we are talking about are and where they are directed. When I visit the community health services in the electorate of Scullin—and all the community health services are involved in delivering dental health—and I see the waiting lists for some treatments in the public system, which can blow out to as long as four years for proper dentures and things like that, it begs the question: when the Commonwealth government intervened and involved itself in public health and we got the waiting lists back to zero, why is it that there was a reluctance from those opposite to continue with a scheme that was so successful? I remind the House—because sometimes it gets lost in the argy-bargy of the debate—that, back in the Keating era, the scheme delivered services to those on the public dental health waiting list by providing additional resources to the public oral health providers and by buying in the time of private practitioners. In fact, that was one of the reasons that the Keating government did not strike much opposition from the profession itself—we recognised that, to tackle the backlog, a partnership was required with all those involved. Many people have mentioned workforce issues in the debate on this legislation. Labor acknowledge that. If we want to get into a fully-fledged political debate, we could have an argument about whose fault it is but, at the end of the day, I think that both sides of the chamber agree to an extent about the opening up of places at rural and regional university campuses, because those who train at those campuses are more likely to stay and practise in rural and regional areas. But let us get the argument in perspective. The honourable member for Dobell quoted figures I was going to use in respect of the increased effort by the state governments in directing resources. I am not in a position to know whether an increase in funding from $270 million to $500 million would mean an increase in output in the order of that magnitude. Mr Deputy Speaker, because of your interest in matters to do with proper financial administration, you would understand why I say often in debates that it is not about the quantum of money. We should really not rest on our laurels in this place. You could throw a host of monetary resources at a problem but, if you throw it in the wrong direction or you do not package it the right way, it might be completely useless. On the basis that there has been an increase in resources, one assumes that that is indicative of the increased effort. What Labor has proposed is a return to a scheme that was successful. I have heard some of the criticisms of that scheme in respect of whether or not the states’ efforts continued at the same rate. There is some evidence that should be a concern. That is why the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Rudd, and the shadow minister, Ms Roxon, today said that, if elected, a Labor government would make additional resources available for public dental health on the condition that the efforts by the states continue. If that gets us involved in the blame game, we will have to wear it. But this is not about blame; it is about sitting down in partnership to tackle a problem. And clearly there is a problem here. There are 650,000 people on a national waiting list. If each of us went around to the local providers of public dental health services, we would know that those waiting lists exist. I do not wish to be churlish, but I do want to mention something which the Prime Minister said. I do not know whether it was an omission by the Prime Minister when he talked about public health being just the public dental hospitals, but I would hope that he does not really think that. I hope that he understands that this is a wider problem. The world has moved on. Now, the disadvantaged and healthcare card holders do not have to go into the public dental hospitals, which are usually only in the major cities. We have encouraged the provision of services in public oral health at the community level throughout Australia. That is proper and appropriate. It has been very successful, and it needs to continue. I am not really interested in the debate about whether this is a Commonwealth responsibility or a state responsibility. There is another aspect of the health debate that we have not really dealt with. If we step back from these pieces of legislation, which are like jigsaw pieces from different puzzles, and look at the way in which we provide resources for health, there is a lot of overlap. When the government talks about chronic health in respect of this legislation, it means that it recognises the tie-in between a person’s health circumstances and their oral health and often it is a bit hard to say which follows what. It is really a chicken and egg thing: is a person’s demonstrably bad oral health a result of their chronic diseases or is it not? I was really interested in the contribution from the honourable member for Moore about the way in which somebody’s oral bacterial health can affect their heart, their circulation system, replaced joints and the like. We have to recognise that all these things are intertwined. In providing resources to address the needs of those people who are on the public health waiting lists, there are likely to be savings in a whole host of areas—for example, where they do not have to go to the GP as often or where their oral health does not contribute to the extent that their general health deteriorates and they require hospitalisation. And that is when the arguments put forward in the report from the inquiry that the member for Fairfax chaired are important—because, on those occasions, it does not matter which sector of government is paying the bill. What really matters is that we have a first-class system that gives a member of our society who is going through health problems the opportunity to get the best outcome. Another aspect which I found interesting—and I must admit that I have not really looked at the knock-on circumstances of this—was a comment by the member for Moore about how we have dentistry and medicine separated. There is a need for a holistic approach to people’s health, involving not only medicos, general practitioners and specialists but also other allied health professionals, dentists and the like. We have seen this done very successfully in other areas, and we really need to get back to models that combine those services. That is why things like community health centres and public dental health schemes are very important. (Time expired) 59 18:16:00 Hull, Kay, MP 83O Riverina NATS 1 0 Mrs HULL —I rise in the House today to support the Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Dental Services) Bill 2007. We have heard myriad discussions, but it was interesting to hear the contribution of the previous speaker, the member for Scullin, because it was not so much about the blame game. We have had a barrage of issues and allegations directed from both sides of the House—they did this, you did that, and somebody else did something else—but I do not think that that is what this debate is about. This debate is about a piece of legislation that is going to provide services and facilities to enable people with chronic conditions and complex care needs to be treated. The dental system and the way it works across Australia in every state are very difficult issues. I really do not know how people can afford to have dentistry work done. It is extraordinarily expensive. That is why there is a need to look at various options in coming up with a suite of measures to respond to the longstanding issues that dentistry has presented us with for a number of years. This bill provides some much needed services. From 1 November 2007 new dental items will be introduced to the Medicare Benefits Schedule. This will enable people who suffer with chronic conditions and have complex care needs to receive Medicare benefits for a broad range of dental services. To resolve the problems regarding the shortage of dentists and the cost of dentistry to the general public is going to take us a long time—it is going to take the nation a long time—and it is going to take cooperation between the states and the Commonwealth. I often wonder about the cost of dentistry, though I am not at all accusing dentists of profiteering—because I do not really think they do. When you go to a surgeon, a surgeon diagnoses your need for a knee replacement or a hip replacement, or diagnoses your kidney disease or whatever, and they generally then send you to a hospital where they will utilise the technology and the equipment that has been put inside the private hospital or public hospital. This equipment and technology is generally paid for from the public purse or by the institution if it is private. To be able to deliver their professional services, a surgeon needs a set of rooms and a secretary and they need to see and diagnose patients at appointments and send them off to hospital, where they will be able to utilise the hospital’s equipment, which they do not have to purchase. A general practitioner generally has a small bag—a little black bag—and diagnostic equipment. He might have something to check your reflexes and he might have a thermometer, a stethoscope and other diagnostic equipment. But if you require further treatment—X-rays or the use of some kind of technology—you will go off to a medical imaging centre or a hospital where all of that equipment is in place. A dentist has to equip their surgery and they have to provide up-to-date technology. They have to be able to see to every aspect of oral hygiene care and dental requirements. They have to be able to diagnose, for example, whether it is a cancer related illness affecting the jaw, teeth, bones et cetera. No longer does your dentist just pop you in the chair and, if you have a cavity, whip a drill around and fix it up in a few minutes or pull out a pair of pliers and take the tooth out. That is no longer the way dentistry is performed. It is very precise and technical, requiring an enormous amount of fit-outs in surgeries. It is extraordinarily costly. I am wondering whether there should be an option whereby dentist surgeries can be fitted out so that dentists do not have to meet the costs of all that equipment, thereby making their services a little cheaper for the general public to access. There have to be different ways of thinking about how dental services can be financially accessible to the majority of the public. Then there is a workforce issue, and maybe that brings up competition. It is a strange thing for me to stand up here and say maybe we need competition and that that may reduce prices. Let me say to you that I do not for one second believe that dentists are profiteering. They have to pay extraordinary overheads in order to be able to run a surgery. If there are not enough dentists around to be able to meet the demand then surely there is an option for some people to be able to charge higher prices. You are really captive to the market. Yes, if you have private health insurance, you can get a rebate on some of those dental works if you have been in your health insurance for a period of time. But if you are just the average worker who is earning, say, up to $35,000 a year, and maybe you are even a one-income family—my electorate is full of people in those circumstances, as I am sure are the electorates of many members—and you are sending children to school, trying to feed and clothe them and do all of the things that you have to do, the thought of spending $1,000, $3,000 or $6,000 on your child’s braces is almost unacceptable. You would love to do it, but it is almost impossible. Just going on regular checks to the dentist to keep your oral hygiene up to date and to have early intervention is even more difficult. So it comes back to the days when we did not have fluoride, when we had tank water—that may be an issue again in the future, with the issue of bottled water, which I raised this afternoon. It comes back to the fact that you only take a trip to the dentist when it is a chronic or acute issue—you have decay in your teeth and they need to be pulled or filled or something. It is such an extraordinarily expensive thing to do. We have to think outside the square. We have to determine that we need to work as a team across Australia. We have to address the workforce shortage. And the government has done that. I am very proud that the government has funded Charles Sturt University with $65.1 million to open a school of dentistry and oral health in my electorate and in the future electorate of the current member for Macquarie. I think it goes into the electorate of the member for Parkes as well as the electorate of the member for Farrer. But the primary structures will be in Wagga Wagga and Orange. I am very proud to have been a part of delivering that. We are now giving rural students an opportunity to become a rural professional in a rural setting, which will almost guarantee that many of those students will then practise in a rural area. That is where there is an enormous shortage of dentists and access to dentistry. That is one measure. I appreciate the government’s budget announcement this year, wherein they provided this $65.1 million, and we are just procuring all of the requirements that we will need into the future. As I said, there is a significant range of interest being shown in that program, with more than 300 calls from prospective students from across inland and rural Australia. That is without any marketing campaign. But that school will open in 2009. It will have a preclinical and clinical facility in Orange and Wagga Wagga. There will be education clinics in Albury-Wodonga, Bathurst and Dubbo in New South Wales. There will be 240 new training places for dental and oral health students over that five years, training in a rural setting—which, as I said, will go a long way to providing the supply to meet the demand. But then you have to work out how you are going to actually enable people to afford to access the supply, rather than standing in the chamber debating the rights and wrongs of a 1992 or 1993 program that was put in place to try to assist the waiting times in the states—which, might I add, from the feedback that I have had, was not a successful outcome. As they typically do, the states, whether they be coalition or Labor, if the Commonwealth is going to put in money, withdraw their money and use it on something else. So you really are just robbing Peter to pay Paul and you are not progressing very far at all. So I am not interested in that scenario. We have done it to death. I have done it to death myself in this House. I have raised dentistry a number of times. I have played the blame game. But it really does need us to sit down as a team and work out how we are going to move forward. These are significant steps forward. These are significant moves being made by the government. They do not deserve criticism. Nobody has the answer at the moment. The states do not have the answer, except to put bucketloads more money into public dental health practices or school dental health. But how does that really affect the man on the street, or mum or the children, who want to go to their local dentist and keep their teeth healthy but who are not able to access public dental services? Those services are primarily there for low-income earners like pensioners and disability pensioners—and so they should be. What we should be doing is saying, ‘Okay, this is an excellent measure,’ because, at the moment, we do not have enough dentists to meet the demand, particularly in rural and regional Australia. We know that we have to train a workforce, so we are going to put 240 training places at Charles Sturt University. We are going to give them $65.1 million in order to establish their campuses so that this can be successful. The second thing is this. We know we have got people out there in every electorate across Australia with chronic conditions and complex care needs who require some urgent assistance to be able to access dentistry. This is what we are here to deal with tonight through this bill, because it does enable eligible patients to receive a Medicare benefit of up to a specified amount of $4,250 over two consecutive years for dental services. This is for those people with chronic conditions and complex needs. It will also enable Medicare benefits to be payable for the supply of dental prostheses, including dentures, to those many people who are elderly and have chronic conditions and complex needs. They need dentures to be able to have a normal balanced and healthy diet. In my view, this is a good positive move that does not deserve to be run down or criticised because it is supposedly not dealing with the whys and wherefores of every dentistry problem across Australia. It is a good measure that deserves attention and consideration as going a long way towards achieving some of the outcomes. It does not achieve all of the outcomes but it gives some choices and options, so it is a good measure that does not deserve criticism. Having started on the workforce issues, we then started to put in place measures to address the complex care needs of those people with chronic conditions. Now we want to move forward so that in the future we will look at how we manage to provide cheaper access to a dental service so that it is within the realm of the majority of the people who are on incomes of less than $35,000 in my electorate—and, believe me, they do represent a significant part of my electorate. Many receive even less than that, given the drought and the current state of disarray that the Riverina is facing with its seven consecutive years of dry land, three catastrophic frost events and four years of crop failures—and irrigators have also entered into this same predicament. That means that more and more people are on lower and lower incomes and on government benefits, support which they are not used to being on. So how do you make dentistry more affordable so that they can have a real form of oral health management that will offer early intervention and prevent further invasive treatments being required? I recall that when I was a young mother my three sons were in a dentist’s chair every three months. I now feel quite cross sometimes that they, having grown into adulthood, have not been taking care of their teeth, given how during their young lives I struggled and scrimped and saved to be able to cash my Medicare receipts for them to be at the dentist’s. Now they have their own money but they will not spend it on their own teeth, which is a real problem. What we have here is the scenario of the majority of families where accessing a dentist is a luxury because of the way in which the families’ income is structured and because of the costs of dentistry. I think more attention will have to be paid to this in the future. If we must think outside the square as to how dentists can be provided with all the technology that they require in their surgeries in a way so that they do not have to pay it off and so that they do not have to get so much back from consumers in order to meet their costs, so be it. These are things that we should consider, given that most medical practitioners are not required to provide all of that technology. They use technology that has been provided by state or Commonwealth governments in another place, whether it be a private hospital or a public hospital. They are able to go in and use that technology. I think that is where we should be heading. I commend this bill to members, not because it is a panacea that is going to bring to an end all the dental problems across Australia but because it deserves to be given support. It deserves not to be criticised. It deserves to be dealt with in the context of the purpose for which it is intended: to resolve some of the problems that we can resolve at this time. You cannot resolve in one fell swoop all the dental issues across Australia through any election campaign announcements, because they are simply difficult and complex things to deal with and we need to be honest in the way in which we assess and deliver programs. I support the bill that is before the House. I believe that it is a good bill that gives people the capacity to have an opportunity that they have not had before. Is it the Commonwealth’s responsibility or is it the states’ responsibility? You know what: people really don’t care. All they want is to be able to afford on a regular basis access to a dentist in their community, so we have to address the workforce issues, address these chronic care issues and address, somehow in some way, how dentistry can become more affordable in the future. I commend the bill to the House and I urge everyone to support this bill because it is before us with the right intentions. It always has been considered with the right intentions. Coalition members have as much heart and compassion for their constituents as opposition members have. We also lobby hard along the way for these types of initiatives because we care as well. In fact, if the truth be known, every member in this House cares for their constituents, so I am hopeful that this legislation will be allowed to provide people with some much needed access to dentistry. It is not a panacea, as it is not going to solve all the problems, but it will go a long way to resolving the problems of some people with chronic conditions and complex care needs who will be able to access this package. 63 18:36:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 0 0 Ms HALL —As the member for Riverina has finished her contribution to the debate on the Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Dental Services) Bill 2007, I would like to say that, while I know she is a member who cares for her constituents and would get in there and fight for them, I disagree with her that a bill deserves to be supported just because having it is better than nothing. The bill before us today seeks to extend a policy, which was in legislation previously brought before this House by the Howard government, that has failed abysmally in the community. This is the government’s attempt to make unworkable legislation work. It is legislation that addresses a very small proportion of the problem that we have in dental care, and it provides services only to people with chronic illnesses. So those 650,000 Australians who are on dental waiting lists throughout this country will not get to first base under this legislation unless they suffer from a chronic illness. I think that is a really important point to make up front. At the beginning of my contribution I would also like to point out that today the Labor Party has made an announcement that I believe will address the issue for all Australians who have been on the dental waiting list for years—those 650,000 Australians. The Labor Party’s announcement today will provide almost $400 million for one million new dental consultations. This will address the backlog that exists—a backlog that has been created by the Howard government. The Prime Minister said in question time today that when the government came to power there was a Commonwealth Dental Health Program. The Prime Minister said that the government got rid of that because the dental waiting list was under control. Well, Mr Prime Minister, I say to you that by getting rid of the Commonwealth Dental Health Program you have created an uncontrollable dental health waiting list. This has created great hardship, angst and misery for a number of people, because dental health is a very important component of a person’s overall health. Because dental health has been allowed to blow out in this way—through the Prime Minister, his health minister and all the members of the government saying, ‘It’s a state issue that’s got nothing to do with us’—there are now 650,000 Australians who cannot access dental treatment when they need it. To be honest with you, it is not good enough. It is very easy to come into this place and blame the states for the problem. The role of the federal government, the Australian government, is to take responsibility, show leadership and deal with the problem. This legislation provides a monetary limit of $4,250 over two consecutive calendar years, which will be set out in a ministerial determination which we have not seen yet. Under the new dental items, Medicare benefits will be paid for the supply of dental prostheses such as dentures. That will be welcomed by those few people who qualify for it. The government’s Medicare dental program is for people with chronic conditions and complex care needs. It was first established in July 2004. It has been hampered by a low take-up rate and by the complexity of the system—both from an administration point of view and from the point of view of being able to access it. About three months ago I had a constituent come to see me. He had a very severe medical condition—mouth cancer—and, because of the ray treatment that he had had for the cancer, he had to have very specialised dental treatment. This person needed to have all his teeth removed and had big problems with infection and decay of his teeth, but no dentist would touch them. He had been on a waiting list for over one year when I first met him. He had a letter which the doctor had sent to the dental clinic saying that this was an urgent matter and this person’s health was starting to deteriorate because of the problem he had with his teeth. I pointed out to my constituent that there existed a Commonwealth dental health program, under the Enhanced Primary Care Program. I had to download all of the information from the computer and give it to my constituent, who then took it to the doctor, who was very surprised to find out that this scheme existed and had existed since 2004. Subsequently, my constituent was referred to two different dentists for opinions. He is still waiting for treatment and is over $100 out of pocket. He will probably benefit from this scheme but I argue that he will still be significantly out of pocket because the scheme will not cover his complex needs. This is a prime example of how the scheme, which has been in place since 2004, has not worked, how doctors do not know about it and how it is an administrative nightmare. I argue strongly that we are expanding a scheme that has failed in the past and is destined to fail in the future. It is a scheme that will provide a service to a very small group of people. Whilst I am talking about the ineffectiveness of the scheme I will give you another example. I was talking to another constituent at a seniors forum I held. This constituent had heard about the Enhanced Primary Care Program for dental care. His doctor had referred him to a dentist. He had had the dental treatment and he paid for the treatment—it was itemised under Medicare—and then he took it to the Medicare office. The Medicare office said, ‘We can’t pay this; this isn’t covered under Medicare. Dental care is not covered under Medicare.’ I have now picked up this case and will follow it up with my local Medicare office. But, once again, this shows how the current system does not work because the people who work in the Medicare offices do not understand how the scheme works. Firstly, we have doctors who do not understand how it works; secondly, we have Medicare officers who do not understand how it works; and, I suppose, thirdly, we have people that we represent in this parliament who can only find out about it through contact with people like us. I think that the two cases I have raised here in this parliament tonight demonstrate how the current system is failing Australians dramatically. In question time today the shadow minister for health asked the Minister for Health and Ageing whether he could inform parliament why the government’s chronic disease dental program has assisted only 14 preschoolers since its inception and only 70 children between the ages of 14 and 15. I must say that the answer that was given by the minister was less than satisfactory. I put it on the record that, between 1994 and 2004, hospital rates for children under the age of five increased by a staggering 91 per cent. Over the decade there has been a hospital rate of 91 per cent for children with dental health problems. Recently MBF released figures that showed a 42 per cent increase in children being treated in private hospitals for dental cavities. This shows a system that is not working. The government would argue that people who do not have chronic illnesses are being assisted to obtain dental care through private health insurance or through the 30 per cent rebate. We on this side of the House support the retention of the 30 per cent rebate, but there are still many people who cannot access dental health care because they cannot afford private health insurance. If they do have private health insurance the gap is enormous, and they are left with large bills. I am a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing, and in November 2006 we tabled a report called The blame game: report on the inquiry into health funding. In that report there was a section on dental care. Initially, we were not going to look at dental care, because we were looking at health costing, but we were overwhelmed with submissions and evidence in relation to dental care. The recommendation was: The Australian Government should supplement state and territory funding for public dental services so that reasonable access standards for appropriate services are maintained, particularly for disadvantaged groups. This should be linked to the achievement of specific service outcomes. This legislation deals only with people with chronic health problems. This does not go to assisting those people who are particularly disadvantaged. The Healthy mouths healthy lives: Australia’s national oral health plan 2004-2023 report was endorsed by the AHMC on 29 July 2004. This report identifies a range of issues, particularly relating to funding arrangements for a dental workforce. That brings us to the point of highlighting the chronic shortage of dentists in Australia. We have an ageing dental workforce, a workforce that will go nowhere near meeting the needs of Australians as they go forward throughout this century. In 2003 research highlighted that there would be a shortage of 1,500 dental professionals by 2010, and in 2004 dental graduation levels were found to be at their lowest level in the last 50 years. We took evidence from dentists when we put together this report. In addition, I have been strongly lobbied by dentists who work within the public system who pointed out to me that there is just not enough money put into the training of dentists and not enough money put into funding dental care in Australia. It has been argued by many people in our community—professionals and people who need dental health care services—that dental health care should be no different from any other service. I cannot see why a constituent of mine should have to go without dental treatment and because of that be forced to live on soft foods for long periods of time, as was a constituent who lives in Toukley, whose plight I raised in this parliament last year. Recently, I received a letter from a constituent that I found particularly moving. This person lives in the Lake Macquarie part of the electorate and has a son who is on a disability support pension. She explained that her son had had his molars removed but was still needing additional dental treatment. Initially, he was told that he would have to wait several months for the treatment. Then, within the last three weeks, his mother called the dental health clinic and was told, ‘No, it is not several months; it will be over a year.’ Her son has significant health problems. It is not only the problems that he has with his teeth but also the whole-of-body problems that are being caused by his dental health problems. He can only eat softish food, and he is gaining weight because the kinds of foods that he can eat make him gain weight. He has to take vitamin supplements to enable him to maintain a state of semi-healthiness. It only enables him to maintain his health at a very low level. He has had very bad flus and has been very sick. His mother attributes this to a large extent to the fact that he has been unable to get the dental care that he needs. I think the government stands condemned for its inaction in the area of dental health. It stands condemned for ripping out the Commonwealth Dental Health Program in 1996. At that time I was in the state parliament and I saw the difference that program made. People who were previously able to get dental treatment when they needed it were coming to my office because the waiting time had blown out. Prior to going into state parliament, I worked in rehab, and many of the people that I worked with there were able to access that treatment. In one fell swoop, the government turned the insignificant waiting list that the Prime Minister talked about today in question time into the situation that we have today with 650,000 people on the waiting list. That is just not good enough. Each and every day, members of the Howard government stand up in this parliament and refuse to take responsibility for their actions by blaming the states. That is not leadership; that is abrogating your responsibility. It is about time that the Prime Minister, his health minister and other members of the government took this issue seriously. It is not only people with chronic health problems that have issues with dental health; everyone does. We should ensure that each and every Australian can access quality dental health treatment when they need it. That is what the ALP’s policy announcement today will allow them to do. 66 18:56:00 Scott, Bruce, MP YT4 Maranoa NATS 1 0 Mr BRUCE SCOTT —It is with great pleasure that I rise this evening to speak on the Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Dental Services) Bill 2007, because it is this government which recognises that, through Medicare, we can address some issues of dental health care for people with chronic health conditions. I was interested in listening to the member for Shortland as she was winding up her contribution to this bill. We hear a great deal from the other side of the House about this issue of the ‘blame game’, and here we have the member for Shortland, a member of the opposition, blaming the federal government for what has been for many decades a state responsibility. It was only during the previous Labor government that for a very short period of time—I think it was when Paul Keating was Prime Minister—the Commonwealth introduced a limited dental scheme because of the failings of some state governments in addressing dental health care at the state level. For decades and decades, dental care has been a state government responsibility. I ought to know because my father-in-law was a dentist and my brother-in-law is a dentist—in other words, I married the daughter of a dentist. Dental health care and dentistry have been very close to my wife’s family and to her right throughout her life and even now. It is very important to understand in this House that the public side of dental health care has for decades been the responsibility of state governments. I welcome the new items that will come under the Medicare banner because it will enable patients who have chronic conditions to have $4,250 of Medicare funded access to dental care. The $4,250 relates to two consecutive years. For instance, if a person needs dental care and is referred by a doctor to a dentist, as is required under this bill, they will have access over two calendar years to the $4,250 funded through Medicare. That is a significant step forward, which recognises that there are people out there with chronic and complex health conditions that need some medical treatment which would help them with their quality of life. Some of these people may be cancer patients. Others may have other health conditions that, in the opinion of their doctor, without this dental care could further deteriorate. The federal government has recognised that need and funded up to $4,250 worth of dental care for those people who need that care on a fairly urgent basis because of their medical condition. This legislation does not replace the responsibilities of the states and territories. We have to ensure that our state and territory Labor governments across Australia accept their responsibility for the funding of public dental health care of the people of their state and territory. The state and territory governments are receiving a massive influx of revenue from the GST—GST revenue that three, four or five years ago they were not budgeting on. It is almost like a windfall which has come their way. With that revenue, if they were responsibly managing their state and territory economies, they would be ensuring that the public dental health system was funded and was meeting the needs of their respective residents. This bill would not be necessary if the state and territory governments were meeting their just responsibilities. That is why this federal government, concerned for the health and welfare of those people with very complex health conditions—some may be suffering cancer or may be on complex drugs for their health condition—is ensuring that they will be able to access this dental service, which should have been the responsibility of the state governments and funded by them. But time and time again we come into this place and we as the federal government have to deal with the failings of the state and territory Labor governments across this country. The federal government initiated a dental health care program that is helping people in rural and remote Australia. In my electorate of Maranoa, the federal government provided some $384,000 to improve dental services in Barcaldine, Longreach and Winton. That money will be used to utilise teledentistry technology. It will certainly make a big difference to the dental health care of those communities. The Coopers Plains dental surgery in Brisbane will be able to look at very high-definition pictures of people’s teeth. That procedure will be conducted by a dental nurse or a practitioner nurse who would be seeing these people in the relevant public hospital, in this case in Barcaldine. In fact, about 12 months ago I visited the hospital and spoke to the dental nurse who was there full time. She is able to describe and also transmit the image of someone’s teeth or their dental condition to the dentist who will be visiting. They come about one week in every four weeks. So when they come to the hospital on their monthly visits they will know, in advance, the sorts of dental treatment that they have to deal with. They will know if there are extractions or fillings or other complex dental work that has to be conducted on someone’s teeth and the length of time it will take because they would have had a very clear video image of someone’s mouth and the dental problems that will have to be addressed when the dentist visits, in this case, Barcaldine. This technology will also be extended into the public system in Longreach and Winton, where the dentist would utilise those dental surgeries. The federal government has funded this technology to improve the dental services of people living in rural and remote Queensland where they do not have a full-time dentist and where a dentist comes on a monthly basis. Sometimes they spend a week in one town. Sometimes they spend a few days in one town and then they move to Longreach for the remainder of the week. They provide a service but, importantly, because of this federal government’s funding this dental service is improved. It is better able to utilise the good technology that is available today to provide the dentist with a very clear picture of what sorts of conditions they will have to address when they come to a town. It also means that the dental nurse in a town can anticipate the number of patients who can be seen on a particular day. That is all possible through teledentistry, which this government has been able to fund. I am very proud of this federal government’s initiative because it is helping people in rural and remote parts of my electorate. Under the Rural Medical Infrastructure Fund this government is providing funds for health care. In my electorate of Maranoa we have seen some $400,000 recently provided to the Aramac shire. That shire will put in that medical infrastructure, which will include dental facilities in the rural medical infrastructure building. It will enable doctors and a dentist to visit—because the federal government will have provided the purpose-built building, which is not there today—without them having to put money of their own into the infrastructure, which obviously will be used not every day but on demand. The rural medical infrastructure that is to be provided and will be funded by the federal government, in conjunction with the local government, is now at real risk because of the forced amalgamations of local shires in Queensland—which was Premier Beattie’s initiative, but Premier Bligh does not now want to visit the mistakes of the Beattie government—because that shire is to be amalgamated with two other shires in their region. I really fear that that rural medical infrastructure building will not be needed in that community because the shire will be abolished and the shire workers will no longer have jobs in the community. Those shire workers will have to move to the bigger town, which will leave a community without the rural medical infrastructure because of the decimation of that community through the forced amalgamation of local shires by the Beattie Labor government. I congratulate Premier Bligh on being the first woman Premier of Queensland but, if she wants to govern for all Queenslanders, I appeal to her to revisit this issue of forced amalgamations of local shires in Queensland. I know that this week she will be out in Charleville in my electorate and she will probably go up to Longreach. When any Labor member goes into my electorate in outback Queensland they always go to Barcaldine, which we acknowledge is the birthplace of the true Labor Party, not the one we see today because that very symbol that brought about the Labor Party when it was born in Barcaldine, the tree of knowledge, died recently. Some say it was poisoned but there are many out there who say that it died of shame because of the actions of the Labor state government in forcing amalgamation of shires against the will of the people and in denying them an opportunity for a free vote on whether they agree with the proposition. 10000 Kerr, Duncan (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DJC Kerr)—Order! Although I am a beneficent and tolerant Deputy Speaker, it would be useful if the member would address the subject of this bill on the odd occasion. YT4 Scott, Bruce, MP Mr BRUCE SCOTT —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Premier of Queensland, Anna Bligh, is travelling into rural Queensland this week. I know that she will be in parts of my electorate. In the interests of the health of Queenslanders, including dental health, I appeal to her to visit those communities. On her watch, she will now be amalgamating those shires against the will of the people and that is going to have a dramatic impact on the health care and particularly the dental health care of people in towns like Aramac, where the medical centre that was to have a dental surgery would have been built, funded by the Aramac Shire and the federal government. Mr Deputy Speaker, I respect your call but I want to acknowledge that we have a new Premier in Queensland—the first woman Premier in that state. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —She was not elected. YT4 Scott, Bruce, MP Mr BRUCE SCOTT —She was not elected, as the Minister for Ageing, who is at the table, has suggested. I appeal to her as the leader of the Queensland government to look at the forced amalgamation issue of those local shires in Queensland. Think of the health care of people in communities where the federal government has put in medical infrastructure, including dental surgeries, such as Charleville and Birdsville in my electorate. I hope the list will soon include Bedourie, where there are many Aboriginal families who certainly need good dental health care. At present, the Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia services these areas. I ask Anna Bligh, the Premier of Queensland, as she travels into western Queensland this week to look at these communities, to think of the people outside the south-eastern corner of Queensland and then to go back to the drawing board on the forced amalgamation of local shires because it is going to have a dramatic impact on them. If you continue to proceed with that foolish plan it will affect the mental health of people and will put stress and strain on many small Queensland families. I commend the bill to the House. 10000 Kerr, Duncan (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DJC Kerr)—I thank the honourable member for his close focus on the terms of the bill. 69 19:12:00 George, Jennie, MP JH5 Throsby ALP 0 0 Ms GEORGE —I am pleased to have the opportunity in this debate on the Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Dental Services) Bill 2007 to speak on the important issue of dental health because it is an issue of major concern to the constituents of Throsby. People need to be aware that in the Illawarra-Shoalhaven region we currently have over 7,000 people waiting on the public dental waiting list. Some have waited year after year without a proper and adequate response. Today in question time we heard another classic example of the blame game. This time it was on dental health. There was a finely orchestrated introductory interjection on the eminently sensible and reasonable questions from the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister. In the staged uproar that occurred after the first question from the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister for Ageing was expelled from the chamber for a period because the Leader of the Opposition was not allowed to continue stating what everybody in the community is well aware of—that is, in 1996 the Howard government abandoned a Commonwealth dental program which had been introduced by Labor to deal precisely with the problem we are witnessing in Australia today: the enormous growth in the number of people in our community waiting for urgent medical treatment, in many cases, and of people waiting for access to preventative dental care. Today the ministers and the Prime Minister played the game that Australians are getting tired of—the blame game. This time it was about dental health, with the Prime Minister trying to deflect criticism from the federal government, which axed the Commonwealth program, by saying that it is all a matter for the states and territories and not a federal responsibility. It was quite an amazing performance. Despite the fact that the Leader of the Opposition quoted directly from the section of the Constitution in which there is a provision for the federal government to exercise its power in the area of dental services, it maintained its typical blame game attitude. I think people are starting to see through it. They know there is a problem out there. The 7,000-plus people in the Illawarra and Shoalhaven know that the blame game is not going to address the problems that they are experiencing in a very acute manner. The economics of the government’s response is totally inadequate. What we see happening in our community is that, if people cannot get access to treatment, their simple dental problems escalate into much more complex health problems. In turn, that presents pressures at other points of our health system. People with mild dental problems have to wait for years to get them treated and end up seeing GPs and being hospitalised for preventable dental conditions. I understand that up to 50,000 hospital admissions are occurring each year for preventable dental conditions. We see an increased reliance on prescription drugs and anaesthetics for pain management and treatment. All this is not only at an enormous cost to the wider health system but at an intolerable cost for many individuals. I have referred to our local media many cases of people who have waited year after year and in desperation had to resort to numbing their abscess pain with alcohol or, in many cases, pulling out their rotting teeth with pliers. They know that the solution to this issue is much more than the typical blame game that they are so accustomed to from the Howard government. It was in fact the government’s decision to scrap a Commonwealth dental scheme that had operated successfully under Labor and had cleared the backlog of people waiting for treatment. They know that this has been the cause of the huge growth in the number of people unable to access dental care when they desperately need it—let alone have any chance of getting any preventative care. We have a national crisis and we have a deterioration in the standards of Australia’s oral health. Tooth decay today ranks as Australia’s most prevalent health problem, and gum disease is not far behind. Untreated dental decay in the Australian adult population stands at around 25 per cent. That is a shocking indictment of this government’s lack of concern for this problem, with a quarter of adult Australians not getting the dental care they need. I am horrified when I read reports in the Sydney Morning Herald of young people having to be admitted to hospital to have all their teeth pulled out under anaesthetic. A recent study found that one in six Australians aged 15 or more were forced to avoid certain foods because of problems with their teeth. I had a situation in my own electorate where a man in his 40s whose teeth were crumbling was not able to get access to dental treatment and in the end had to resort to buying himself baby food to prevent the further decay and crumbling of his teeth. That is a shocking indictment of a country as rich as ours and a government whose surplus is huge. There are 650,000 Australians—and you know who they are: the low-income people, the pensioners, the people on fixed-income in retirement, the people who cannot afford to have private dental health insurance—who are missing out. If you are lucky enough to be able to afford private health insurance you can get some reimbursement from your private health fund, and the government does pay out for people who are privately insured. But a lot of the people in my electorate, probably around 60 per cent, do not have private health insurance, and they are the people who are feeling the impacts of this situation most intensely. To get public treatment in my area at the moment you need to present with a swelling, an abscess or pain and bleeding. Even then, you might wait three days before you can get access to a dentist. It is not unusual in my region for people to be waiting for five or six years before they can get dentures. Of course, you can forget about any preventative treatment. And we have seen quite a wind-back of dental services for school-age children as well. It is a fact that the average cost of dental treatment has increased well in excess of inflation, and that puts it beyond the reach of many low-income people, who rightly deserve a proper public dental system to attend to their needs. A recent study by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare found that 30 per cent of Australians reported avoiding dental care due to the cost factor. In other words, they knew they needed to get treatment but a third of them said, ‘I just can’t afford to pay it.’ Twenty per cent said that the cost had prevented them from having recommended treatment, and 18 per cent reported that they would have a lot of difficulty paying a $100 dental bill. Well, $100 at the dentists these days does not get you very far at all. It is appalling that the cost of dental care is preventing many of the families whom I represent from being able to access proper services. The other thing that is very important in this debate is to recognise that the government has done very little about the huge dental workforce shortages and the maldistribution of public dentists across the nation. It is exactly the same story as we have with GPs. If you are in urban Australia, if you are in a major capital city, your chances of seeing a practising dentist are far greater than if you are in a regional area like mine—and it is even more problematic in remote and rural Australia. This government has known about the shortage of dental professionals for a long time. The neglect of the government in this area is longstanding, and surely no government minister would deny that it is a federal responsibility to train an adequate number of dental professionals. A national oral health training strategy for oral healthcare providers was recommended by the Senate Community Affairs References Committee as far back as 1998. But the Howard government, year after year, failed to act to ensure that we had a reasonable intake and graduation of dental professionals to service the needs of our community. Back in 2003, researchers were telling the government and the opposition that there would be an estimated shortage of 1,500 dental professionals by 2010 unless urgent action was taken. In 2004, just a few years ago and in the midst of this crisis, dental graduation levels were at their lowest level for over 50 years. Belatedly, the government finally recognised that they needed to increase the number of places. As our shadow minister indicated in her contribution today, we welcome the recent budget announcement of a new dental school at Charles Sturt University. But much more needs to be done. Comprehensive and strategic policies are required to ensure a long-term solution to the dental crisis in our nation. After all, it is real people we are talking about. When we discuss the facts and figures about waiting lists and preventable hospitalisation and when we look at the statistics about workforce shortages and clinics that are closing their lists to people who need to see a dentist, we must always keep in mind that these are real people, real families. They are not just statistics, but real people with real concerns that need to be seriously addressed. I want to say something about the response of this government to this crisis in our nation. No-one on our side of the chamber would begrudge people suffering chronic disease and illness having priority access to proper dental treatment. The government recognised, in a very limited way, that they needed to move on this issue because the com-munity—not just constituents but the professionals, the peak bodies and the dental associations—were saying quite clearly that something urgently needed to be done. The government’s response to the 650,000 people on the waiting list was to put forward a very limited scheme. It has helped some people. As I said, you do not begrudge the fact that people have had access to the government’s restricted scheme. But people need to realise that the government’s scheme is limited to assisting those who have a chronic medical condition, such as heart disease or diabetes or malignancies of the head and neck. You have to have poor oral health or a dental condition which is exacerbating this chronic disease to even get a look-in to the government’s program. On top of that, your GP needs to be treating you under a multidisciplinary care plan. If you satisfy those criteria, you may be eligible for assistance. But it is very limited. As I indicated, eligibility is very tight. We can see that in the data that is on the public record. Since the introduction of this scheme by the government, only 7,228 Australians have had their dental needs attended to in the three years between July 2004 and June 2007. Only 7,228 people got access under this program—which is now going to be expanded—out of 650,000. So what about the hundreds of thousands of people who are not going to be able to access the government’s scheme under the tight eligibility requirements that exist? In my state of New South Wales, 4,236 people with chronic illnesses got access to the government’s dental assistance scheme through Medicare in those three years. I do not begrudge any of those people that access, because they were in desperate situations, and I am very pleased for every one of them who got access. All of those 4,236 would have been very deserving cases. But that number for the whole of New South Wales is less than the number on the waiting list in the Illawarra and Shoalhaven region, so you can see that the scheme has not been a great success. What we have in the government’s announcements is additional money being poured into a scheme which, on the statistics and data available, has had very poor outcomes to date. The poor take-up of the government’s program has been due to complex and restrictive eligibility criteria. As I said earlier, it limits coverage to those whose oral health exacerbates their chronic disease. The eligibility criteria announced by the government in the budget remain totally unchanged by the legislation before us. The minister did not challenge that argument when it was put today. The government has also failed to address the additional problems with this program: namely, the high out-of-pocket costs for patients and the very complex and restrictive referral process required before a patient can see a dentist under the health care plan. Fiddling with the detail of how this failing program is to work in the future in my judgement will do little to address the overall national problem: the 650,000 people languishing on the public dental waiting list. It will do nothing to make dental care more affordable and accessible to Australian families across the board. Given the poor take-up rate to date, we on this side of the House have no confidence that the extended program will fare any better. Pouring money into a failing scheme will not solve Australia’s dental crisis. Today, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow health minister outlined details of Labor’s proposal. Our Commonwealth dental health program will work in combination with the efforts of states and territories. Today, we committed up to $290 million to this combined effort. It is very important that people understand that this was only the first instalment. We wasted a lot of time in question time with this phoney argument about the so-called loss of $100 million between the government’s commitment and that of the opposition. If they had read the releases that went out today and listened to what the Leader of the Opposition said, they would know it has been made clear that the $290 million in our announcement today is only the first instalment. So I would urge all my constituents to make sure that they keep abreast of the additional announcements that Labor will make on our Commonwealth dental program. Under our plan we are going to use the infrastructure that already exists in states and territories. They will get additional funding but they will be required to meet some new standards of dental care. At the top of that list of those who will benefit from the announcement today will be people with chronic diseases, who will have a high priority—and rightly so—but we will also expect that timely service is provided for preventative and emergency services and that governments will commit to maintaining their current effort. Under our plan, over three years, up to one million Australians will finally receive much-needed dental treatment. The community at large will understand that only Labor, with national leadership on this issue, will end the blame game that they are so used to hearing from the other side of the House. We will provide the national leadership. We will provide the funding and resources, and request that the states sign up to clear objectives so that we can clear the huge backlog of 650,000 Australians languishing on the public dental waiting lists. The states will be able to either supplement their existing public services and infrastructure or purchase private sector appointments for the hundreds of thousands of people who are now waiting for some light at the end of the tunnel to get their urgently needed dental conditions treated with some expediency. So it is for those reasons that I reject the government’s limited proposals. I do not begrudge the people that will benefit, but I say to the government again: if 7,000 people out of 650,000 got treatment under the scheme as it was first devised, I do not see that it will do much better into the future. (Time expired) 73 19:32:00 Anderson, John, MP 4K4 Gwydir NATS 1 0 Mr ANDERSON —Mr Speaker, I indicate at the outset that I understand you may give me a little latitude in terms of speaking to the matter in hand before the House. This will be the last time I speak in this place, some 18½ years after I was sworn in and just over 18 years since I gave my maiden speech as the second person to do so in the House of Representatives who never served in the old parliament, following the by-election on Ralph Hunt’s retirement in 1989. I have had a very privileged run; I have been very fortunate. I had 13 years on the front bench, 9½ of those in cabinet in government, six years as my party’s leader and as Deputy Prime Minister. I can only say to the House that I have deeply appreciated the courtesies, the understandings that have been extended to me in so many ways, even when I have stood for things that not all might have agreed with and when you have those inevitable moments that everyone in public life has when things do not seem to be going so well. I feel in a way I have already bored you with my remarks, as I exited the scene a little over two years ago when I stepped aside as Deputy PM, so it is kind of you—those of you who are present—to come in again tonight. Now is the time for me, though, to go out to pasture. I am looking forward to it with a sense of real anticipation, even excitement, notwithstanding the great privilege that it has been being here for all these years. There are a few things I want to reflect on tonight. Perhaps the toughest task I was ever involved in was as one of the first six members of the razor gang set up in 1996; a dreadful process. We spent I think five months of the first 14 in government locked up preparing the first two budgets. It was a very grinding exercise that never seemed to end and yet it was worthwhile. The fruits of those exercises I think are now well established. I think of some of the other things I was involved in—Agriculture Advancing Australia, with the restoration of farm management deposits. I think they have been immensely valuable to the farm sector through these very difficult times. I think of the Farm Family Restart package, which helped people exit with dignity when there was no other future for them—that was part of Agriculture Advancing Australia. I think too of FarmBiz, which at the time I wondered about, but farmers everywhere have told me that it has helped them lift their professionalism and the way in which they go about their business. I see that reflected in the incredible way that Australia’s livestock farmers have coped with this drought in terms of the management of their pastures and the much more rapid and effective decision-making processes and so forth that they go through, and I draw much satisfaction from it. I think of AQIS reform. Somebody had a go at me the other day when I mentioned it because of the quarantine issues that the current minister is currently grappling with. The resources we put in to provide the services were not there when we got into government. No service is ever perfect, and you may very well find things that have to be done differently in the future. But compare it to the service we had when we got into government in 1996 and compare it to the old days when the red meat industry was regularly shut down because the government could not provide inspectors—do you remember Mudginberri?—and yet at the same time there were scores of inspectors headquartered in country towns, being billed against meat producers, who were doing nothing but could not be moved on. We reformed all of that. As I speak, I understand the total bill to the red meat industry in today’s dollars would be about $40 million this year for the inspection services provided by AQIS. When the member for Hotham was last the minister for primary industries it was $140 million. That is $100 million odd—a lot more in today’s terms—that does not leave farmers’ hands in the form of taxes paid to Canberra for services that were, to put it mildly, barely adequate. I think of the regional policy that we pursued so actively for so many years and some of the people who helped me put it together—Stephen Oxley up there, Peter Langhorne and others too numerous to mention who helped us with all of that stuff. From time to time you hear a bit of criticism of regional policy. I just say: there is a case for social justice. Many people in rural and regional Australia felt for many years, understandably, that the contribution they made was underrecognised, that the services they got were out of kilter in proportion to the contribution they made to the wellbeing of the nation and that social disharmony is not the ideal platform for political stability—and political stability is needed if you are to take a nation forward and to engage in the economic reforms that have taken the country forward. I do not apologise for what we have done in regional Australia. I do not say that everything was right, but I do say that we put back into those country towns banking services, postal services, mobile phone towers when Telstra would not do it and Roads to Recovery. All of those things have been good and worthwhile things to do. I would ask those who would tut-tut in the leafy suburbs about the likes of One Nation to not tut-tut when we go out to grapple with the real problems that some of those people deal with. AusLink and the National Water Initiative were two big national policies that I was very proud of. I believe that both are world’s best practice—they are both in capable hands now, and I am very pleased about that—but I mention them here tonight for one reason only. I have a very high regard for the best intellects in the Public Service—and I include the head of Treasury, Dr Ken Henry—but I was astounded to read that at the Sydney Institute in the spring of 2005, shortly after I stepped aside as Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Henry spoke of AusLink and water in these terms: In water, electricity and land transport, we can’t afford anything less than world’s best practice. He gave the reasons why we in Australia cannot afford less than world’s best practice. He went on to say: ... in each of these areas, ambitious Commonwealth-State programmes are in place to take reform much further: He listed them in this order: the National Water Initiative, AusLink and the COAG Australian Energy Market Agreement. I have had the opportunity to say to the head of the Treasury face to face that Treasury loudly protested that, when big policy issues are involved, you need the deep intellect of departments such as Treasury. That is fine—I welcome it—but I made the point to him that I faced open hostility on AusLink: ‘No, you can’t spend any more money.’ But then: ‘That was until we discovered that the ports, Mr Deputy Prime Minister, were not working well enough and that we had to do something about infrastructure.’ Treasury should have been deeply engaging with us rather than obstructing us, as they did. This simple attitude of saying no overlooks the fact that some investments by the Commonwealth produce money—they are not simple outlays or recurrent expenditure. I would have welcomed Treasury’s engagement. With the National Water Initiative we got a passive, ‘All right, we will let it progress,’ rather than provision of the deep intellectual input that that department now says that it wants to provide and that I know it can provide. I make those comments in the spirit of wanting to be helpful as I pass from this scene. There are deep intellects in the bureaucracy, but they really need to engage in these solid policy issues. They have not always been, and I dare say nothing has changed. I know there are times when they have to say, ‘That’s a political matter,’ or, ‘We disapprove’—we all know that—but there are times when their active engagement would short-cut the route to better policy outcomes. I would encourage that approach from them. In terms of social policy, I have always had a deep commitment to those things. I simply say, without wanting to in any way do anything other than accord full credit to those who were responsible, that policies like the new schools policy—which replaces the old ‘no new schools’ policy—are tremendously important. It gives parents choice and ensures a far better guardianship for many of the values and beliefs that many of our parents would want emulated and taken forward for the betterment and indeed the maintenance of a stable society. Some might ask why the government did not go for income splitting, but I believe that the way that the family tax benefit now works, whereby if you earn around $53,000 you are as well off or even better off if one parent stays at home, gives parents real choice. I think it is very high quality social policy. I am privileged—there is no other word for it—to have been associated with a government that has moved in those sorts of directions over the last 11½ years. I think, too, of mutual obligation. As a civilised society we do need to recognise that we will be judged by the way we treat the less fortunate, but part of treating them well is to get them to recognise that a little social obligation is a very good thing. I have been very surprised and delighted at the change in attitude that many parents have told me they have found in their young people when they have been through something like Work for the Dole or Green Corp, for which I give full credit to Tony Abbott. Those sorts of things have been very good. Let me say that this wonderful country is, in my view, economically—and, I would argue, in many other ways—stronger now than it was in 1996, and that is for the better. On almost every reasonable indicator, we are a massively fortunate nation. Employment—labour market penetration—is now at the highest levels we have ever seen in our society. On longevity, provided only if we take reasonable care of our own health: which society could have looked to the lifespan that we as men and women in this country enjoy? Think of health care. Yes, it can always be improved—we have vigorous debates about it—but we are wealthy enough that we can spend more on health care in this country than the total GDPs of 65 per cent of the nations on earth. Look at the way in which we can communicate. Look at the transport revolution that has done so much to give us freedoms we could never have dreamt of. Sound aviation policy means that more Australians than ever are flying despite the tragedy of the loss of Ansett a few years ago. These things are all good, but I have come to realise—perhaps I knew it before I started here—that happiness is not a function of material wealth. Happiness is a rare commodity in Australia today. I think most of us in this place would know of people who are happy, who are content with their lot and have a sense of hope; however, happiness is not as common as we might like in this country. I acknowledge that events such as crippling drought leave many people with extraordinary, deep worries that are, understandably, very hard to cope with. However, we now have an epidemic of depression—which is, of course, the opposite of happiness—in the Western world, including in this country. It amazed me to realise this, as I thought back over it, that many of the happiest people I have known are people who in material terms have not been well off at all. The most outstanding example of all was the Watoto Children’s Choir—a group of 30 or 35 young Africans. I listened to them in the foyer of Parliament House and I met with them. Those kids had nothing. They did not even have their parents, let alone a home, a DVD or an iPod, which many kids think are important. They did not have any of those things, yet the joy as they sang and danced as only the Africans can and the hope as they told me of their aspirations—they wanted to be teachers, doctors and farmers—really struck me. It was a powerful reminder for me that happiness is not a function of our material wellbeing but, rather, of beliefs which shape values and attitudes and determine whether or not we have hope and whether or not we are in effective relationships with others. Those are the things that I think will determine the strength of the nation in the future. I say to the House that, ultimately, the beliefs of the people will shape our society for better or for worse in the long run. That is of greater material interest to us all, including in government, because we are a function of a society that puts us here and supports us or chooses to withdraw its support. One of the reasons that I believe the government is absolutely right to insist on the better teaching of history is that it will help us to understand the consequences, for good and for bad, of different belief systems or of no belief systems. Whilst I would obviously recognise the need to separate church and state, I do think we need to put our young people in a position where they are better able to make judgements about what they believe and why and what will work for them and our society. This year, 2007, is in fact the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade—not slave ownership itself; that took another 30 years to achieve—by the then global superpower, Great Britain. It is sobering to realise that just 200 years ago freedom was only a far-off dream for an estimated, according to the reliable historians—or the ones I would regard as reliable—90 per cent of humanity. Most of humanity was either in slavery or little better off in serfdom—and, of course, in our country, they were in irons. The story of William Wilberforce and his supporters, as told in Amazing Grace, is a story of transformed lives transforming society. It is an astonishingly powerful story, the outcomes of which were of undeniably great benefit not only to those slaves who gained their freedom but to all of society as well. Our freedoms grew historically as we expanded our understanding of who belonged to the family of human beings. Our freedoms, I note in passing, will contract as we exclude people from the human family. The ending of the slave trade came about through the first of the great human rights campaigns—perhaps the biggest of them all—and, arguably, the first major modern political campaign. It led directly to a further political campaign: to end the corruption of the electoral system in Great Britain, to enable in 1833 a truly representative parliament to act on the people’s wishes and to actually free the slaves—having ended the trade—whose owners were granted massive compensation. What for? For the loss of their goods and chattels. But we do not think of black people as goods and chattels anymore; we recognise them fully as members of the human family. It is a very powerful story, yet only 500,000 people have been to see Amazing Grace. I wish every Australian could see it. It gives great and valuable insights into our society—into the condition that we confront as people. And as we confront our endless problems—terrorism, global warming, energy security and the epidemic of depression, as I have mentioned, that sweeps the modern age—we can, I think, learn a lot more from history than we have been doing to date. I am convinced that history shows us that a loss of the beliefs or, worse, a denial of the beliefs that a culture is built on will ultimately lead to the decline and even destruction of that culture. Dawkins and Hitchins et al would have us believe that the problem is that we have not been secular enough. They would say that we ought to be more secular. As I see it, we gave secularism a great run in the 20th century. We tried atheistic communism and got 60 million dead in Russia and we got the killing fields of Pol Pot—and goodness only knows how many dead in China. We tried atheistic right-wing fascism in Germany and beyond and got the gas chambers and another 60 million dead. Today we are not so arrogant; we are beginning to question again. But I would urge that we learn the lessons of history when we seek out and respond to the truth. When we do not sit on the fence, we in fact will find that truth is available to us. I deeply and sincerely believe that. I think if Wilberforce were here today he would say, ‘Your society is not so different to the one that I have been active in, and the great truth remains,’—challenging us that the central figure in history said to us: ‘There is such a thing as the truth, and I am it and the way to God is through me.’ I put that challenge there. We are free to respond either way, but I say that as a society we should no longer go on ignoring it. We can no longer go on skirting around it, either as individuals or collectively. Let me finally, but most importantly perhaps of all tonight, say a heartfelt thanks to so many, and I have mentioned some already who are here tonight. I thank all of my friends in the National Party—past and present. I think of Ralph Hunt, whose place I took in this House. I think of Ian Sinclair, who mentored me for so long as I sat over on the cross-benches. I think of my leader Mark Vaile and the other cabinet members from the National Party. I think of our wonderful ladies—Kay Hull, the member for Riverina; De-Anne Kelly, the member for Dawson; Fiona Nash, Senator for New South Wales—and the other members, many of whom are here. I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your friendship and your support. And I say precisely the same to my Liberal colleagues here and to those members opposite, many of whom I have enjoyed a very good relationship with over the years—some of them even when we have disagreed vehemently on policy matters. In their absence, I thank old friends, the Prime Minister, of course, Peter Costello and other cabinet members. A long way from home, I thank tonight my long-time campaign director, Ruth Strang, who is in the gallery tonight with her husband, John. She has run six of the seven campaigns that I have been through. It makes you realise how short federal terms have been historically. I have been here since 1989 and I have been through seven campaigns if you count the by-election. I thank Margaret Illingworth, whose brother served in this place as a Liberal member for many years, Virginia Armitage, Warwick Knight and so many others from the home front—my extended family. In particular, of course, I thank my beautiful-in-every-way wife—described by one perceptive media writer as ‘indefatigably sunny’. I hope I pronounced that properly; it was something like that. Being from the National Party, I had to look the word up in the dictionary! My father loathed front, but he would have forgiven me for saying tonight that no man can know greater pride than I do in my four children: Jessica, who cannot be here with us tonight as she is at Sydney university; my son, Nicholas; my second daughter, Georgina; and my youngest daughter, Laura—who are up in the gallery tonight. Thank you all very much. 78 19:52:00 Bird, Sharon, MP DZP Cunningham ALP 0 0 Ms BIRD —Can I open by acknowledging the member for Gwydir and wishing him and his family all the best in the future. I acknowledge that his final speech in this House contributed not only to the quality of debate in this House but to the national discourse. I take the opportunity this evening to speak on the Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Dental Services) Bill 2007 and to outline why I support the ALP’s position in opposing this bill. The bill amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 in order to provide for the expansion of the government’s Medicare dental program for people with chronic conditions and complex care needs. The bill seeks to make amendments because, as the Minister for Health and Ageing acknowledged in question time today, the government got the original program so wrong that it was seriously insufficient. The government now seeks to amend the bill to correct those failings and in doing so perpetuates the very reasons it failed in the first place. The amendments proposed in this bill enable a monetary limit on Medicare benefits for dental services to be introduced for eligible patients. The limit of $4,250 over two consecutive calendar years will be set out in a ministerial determination made under section 3C(1) of the Health Insurance Act. The original scheme for people with chronic conditions and complex care needs was established by this government in July 2004, eight years after this same government had axed the Commonwealth dental health scheme—eight years during which this government vehemently denied over and over again that they had any responsibility for the suffering of an increasing number of people who no longer had access to a Commonwealth dental health scheme. I did wonder what amazing event had occurred at that point in time to change those denials of eight years. What was so significant in July 2004? It did not take very long to realise that it was only a few months before an election. And, no surprise, only now, over three years later, does the minister acknowledge that there are serious problems with the 2004 scheme and seek to amend the act. What is so significant about this timing? We are once again only a few months, perhaps weeks, away from election day. Because the 2004 version of the scheme has been defined by an extremely low take-up, due to the complexity of the referral system it created and the high copayments, the government announced in the budget this year that it would pour an additional $377 million into the failing program. This government is dragged reluctantly, protesting, to any serious addressing of the dental health problems our communities face. It only ever responds immediately before an election. It comprehensively fails to understand that the rising cost of dental care is a major cost-of-living issue for families and has contributed to a national dental health crisis that has left one in three Australians avoiding dental care simply because of the cost. The reality is that the targeting of the program to only those with chronic conditions and complex care needs has resulted in a very limited uptake of the program to date, with only 7,228 Australians over those three years being able to access help with their dental problems. The proposed amendment before the House seeks to increase to $4,250 the level of Medicare funded dental treatment able to be accessed over two consecutive calendar years. This may assist in reducing the high copayments, but the retention of limited eligibility to people with chronic conditions and complex care needs will necessarily mean that only a small proportion of the population will be eligible to access this assistance. For the wider community there will be no change to the cost or availability of dental treatment as a result of this bill, and certainly no assistance will be provided to the 650,000 people currently on the public dental waiting list, who sit there because they cannot access this government’s current scheme and so will not be assisted by these proposed amendments at all. That is 650,000 sufferers left waiting yet again. In its very first year in office this government axed the Commonwealth dental health scheme, which was providing $100 million per year for public dental services. This has directly led to the 650,000 men, women and children who now sit on the waiting list, and is evidenced in the sharp deterioration in dental health standards amongst low-income people and young children. As a member of this House from a New South Wales seat I would also like to identify that within that 650,000 figure are 178,876 people from New South Wales, as at 31 May 2007, and that 45,000 of these are children. This is disgraceful. Any parent who has a child suffering dental pain knows that every day waiting is unacceptable. Indeed, the government’s chronic disease dental program has, over the past three years, only assisted 14 preschoolers and one child under five. A report produced in 1999 by the University of Adelaide reported that Australian children had the ‘world’s best’—that is their words—teeth during the 1990s. Sadly, this has not been universally sustained. Between 1996 and 1999, five-year-olds experienced a 21.7 per cent increase in deciduous decay. The New South Wales Chief Health Officer’s statistics also show that hospitalisation rates for children under five for the removal or restoration of teeth increased by 91 per cent between 1994-95 and 2005-06. This worrying development was further confirmed by information released in February this year by private health insurer MBF, which showed a 42 per cent increase in children being treated in private hospitals for dental cavities. Not only have waiting lists become a problem under this government; the average cost of dental treatment has also increased well in excess of inflation, putting it beyond the reach of many low-income people. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare in its report entitled Australia’s dental generations: the national survey of adult oral health 2004-2006, found that the 30 per cent of Australians reported avoiding dental care due to cost. That is 40 per cent of Australians not going to the dentist when they needed to simply because of the cost. 20.6 per cent said that costs had prevented them from having recommended dental treatment and 18.2 per cent reported that they would have a lot of difficulty paying a $100 dental bill—and to be quite honest, given the current cost and the increase in the cost of dental services, I think they would be doing pretty well to find anything that cost them only $100 to start with. Most of them know that they are up for quite a bit of money and, clearly, from these figures 40 per cent are not even seeking dental advice because they know that they are just not going to be able to afford it, and 20.6 per cent seek the advice and then are not able to follow through on the full service because they cannot afford it. That is an unsustainable and disgraceful situation. Over the 11 long years that this government has persisted in justification and reluctant, ill-conceived policy activity on dental health, the states and territories have more than doubled their funding to public dental health in an effort to alleviate the pain left by this government’s abandonment of the field in 1996. Time and time again the Howard government has asserted that the states are wholly and solely to blame for the dental health crisis, in complete contradiction of the constitutional allocation of jurisdictions. Indeed, the Prime Minister said today that before the Hawke-Keating government took a role and met their responsibility, dental health service had ‘since time immemorial’—to use the Prime Minister’s own words—been provided by the states. For a Prime Minister who so recently announced that this government has to stop talking about the past and focus on outlining plans for the future, they spend an awful lot of time investigating further and further into the past when asked to debate any particular issue of concern to the community today. On that sort of basis, heaven help the development and rollout of new technologies if this is to be the approach of this government to taking responsibility for any matter. The public dissatisfaction with the removal of the Commonwealth Dental Health Program has not abated over the intervening long 11 years. Indeed, in my own region I have supported the work of local community activists and would like to particularly acknowledge the work of my colleague the member for Throsby, who has provided extensive support to these local people in advocating in this parliament for the return of a Commonwealth dental scheme over the preceding years. Local groups in our area have united in the Illawarra Dental Health Action Group, and organisations such as the Combined Pensioner and Superannuants Association have maintained their determination to see the return of a scheme that was so critically important for the people they represent and on whose behalf they advocate so strongly. I would like to mention the outstanding leadership offered in this campaign by locals such as Alice Scott, Tom Ward and Edna and Eric Stevenson, but I also acknowledge that they are only able to maintain their efforts because of the support of so many other local people who join with them in the campaign. Such community people, as well as the 650,000 still waiting on public lists, would have no trouble understanding why Labor would oppose such a bill as that before us today. It will do so little to address the public dental waiting lists and nothing to make dental care more affordable and accessible to Australian families and pensioners. When the budget announcement was made, Labor announced that we would be likely to use this money to invest in a dental care scheme that actually provided real benefit to the ordinary Australians who expect, and indeed deserve, so much better in health policy from a federal government. Today federal Labor took up that expectation and made a significant announcement on dental health. The federal Labor leader, Kevin Rudd, and the shadow minister for health, Nicola Roxon, announced that a Rudd Labor government will re-establish a Commonwealth dental health program and provide funding for up to one million additional dental consultations for Australians needing dental treatment. This commitment pledges up to $290 million to such a Commonwealth dental health program as a first instalment in Labor’s overall commitment to dental health. Under this plan, to be introduced by a Rudd Labor government, up to one million people will finally receive, over the three years, their much-needed dental treatment. This is in comparison to the Howard government’s chronic disease scheme that has failed to assist 650,000 people who still sit on the waiting list, the scheme that over the three years of its operation has only provided some relief to 7,000 people because of the barriers of its complex eligibility process and referral criteria. Federal Labor is not interested in the cheap-shot blame game that the Howard government has played with this issue. We are just committed to clearing the backlog and relieving the pain and suffering of those people caught in this backlog. This money and the services it will purchase will supplement existing public services or purchase private sector appointments for these people. Under the Rudd Labor plan, the state and territory governments will be required to meet new standards of dental care as part of their commitment to ensure that this additional Commonwealth funding arrests and reverses our failing dental health standards, particularly amongst the most needy and vulnerable in our communities. State and territory governments will be required to meet the new standards, which include providing priority services to individuals with chronic diseases affected by poor oral health, providing timely service for preventative and emergency services and maintaining their current efforts. I have absolutely no doubt that the Rudd Labor announcement will be resoundingly applauded and welcomed by local groups in my area who have been fighting on this issue for all the years since this government axed the scheme. I commend the Labor leader and the shadow health minister on understanding the needs of communities like mine and making a real and practical announcement on such an important health issue. This will bring significant relief to so many people in Cunningham. I note that in the contribution of my colleague the member for Throsby she outlined the fact that in our own area there are approximately 7,000 people on the waiting list. The member for Throsby, like me, has regular contact with those people, and we are particularly and pertinently aware of how frustrating it is for them to deal with the pain and suffering and other ongoing physical effects of their poor dental and oral health. I know each and every one of those people will be extremely pleased when we inform them of the announcement of Labor’s commitment today and that they will absolutely understand that we are committed to providing a real, direct service, the sort of service they got up until 1996 and which had been so successfully attacking the long public dental waiting lists. By its axing we have now seen the situation get to the point where 650,000 of these people across our nation are unfortunately unable to get access to the public health service that they need. 82 20:08:00 Moylan, Judi, MP 4V5 Pearce LP 1 0 Mrs MOYLAN —Dental health has certainly been a topic of considerable discussion today. It is a fact that dental health is fundamental to overall health and wellbeing. People who have a chronic illness such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease or cancer are more susceptible to oral health problems. In fact, poor oral health may contribute to heart disease and stroke, according to the American Heart Association. People undergoing treatment for cancer are also at risk of oral health conditions that without treatment pose a very serious additional risk to health. Poor oral health can affect a person’s ability to eat, swallow and speak. It can result in considerable pain, the possibility of infection and loss of teeth. While the dental health of children—with the exception of some children in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population—has improved, with a significant reduction in the number of children with tooth decay, there remains a problem in the adult population. In fact, Australia ranks first amongst OECD countries for the oral health of children. Conversely, in the adult population, according to a 2001 study by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, there are 19 million untreated decayed teeth—the most prevalent chronic condition affecting health. Australian adults rank third last in oral health status in the OECD. For some years state governments have failed to maintain the dental health system, and the waiting lists have grown so that there are an estimated 500,000 people now on state government waiting lists. In Western Australia in particular I find this totally unacceptable. It is a wealthy state and there is no reason for the large number of people on waiting lists. This situation exists despite the federal government having provided a four-year catch-up program in 1994, with the allocation of $278 million over that period. Under the Commonwealth Dental Health Program, 1.5 million services were provided, and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare carried out an evaluation of the program in 1997. Despite some positive outcomes, including shorter waiting times, fewer extractions and a greater level of satisfaction, there were also some shortcomings of that program, and these included only a small difference in emergency care treatment despite the intention of the scheme to shift the emphasis to general care. The people eligible for care under the CDHP, Commonwealth concession card holders, were more likely to present for tooth extraction and were more prone to toothache than the general population, and the range of services was restricted, with insufficient incentives for private practitioners to participate in the scheme. Despite the investment of the federal government in the CDHP, by June 2002 the waiting list for people in Western Australia had more than doubled, to 26,000 people, with the waiting time increasing dramatically from eight months in 1997 to 13 months in 2002. I think you would agree that this is a deplorable situation for a wealthy state. Similar figures, I understand, applied in other states. Following the 2007-08 budget announcement on dental health measures the government, in consultation with stakeholders, has provided greater flexibility for patients to receive complex treatments as required. And the scheme is more generous since the announcement in the budget. The Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Dental Services) Bill 2007 will improve and increase access to dental treatment under Medicare for people who have a chronic condition and who have complex care needs. New dental items on the Medicare Benefits Schedule will be introduced from 1 November 2007, and this will enable eligible patients to receive Medicare benefits for a broad range of dental services. Up to $4,250 in Medicare dental benefits over two consecutive calendar years will be available to patients. This includes any Medicare safety net benefit payable to the patient. The treatment will be based on clinical needs. In total, the government has committed $384.6 million over the next four years so that patients can have access to dental treatment in the private sector. This is meant to complement and take the pressure off existing state dental services, not to supplant them. It is, after all, a state government responsibility. There are clear lines of responsibility, and this is one that falls within the state parameters. To be eligible for the Medicare dental benefit a person will need to be managed by a general practitioner under specific chronic disease management and multidisciplinary care plans. Patients will need to be referred by their general practitioner to a dentist. The Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Dental Services) Bill 2007 will also enable Medicare benefits to be paid for the supply of dental prostheses, including dentures, which will be of particular benefit to the elderly. This program complements other government initiatives announced in previous federal budgets designed to increase access to dental treatment. Measures announced in the 2004 budget by the Howard government allowed a patient to be referred to a dentist if they had a dental problem that was exacerbating their chronic condition, whereas now a patient can be referred to a dentist if their oral health is impacting on, or likely to impact on, their general health. The existing EPC dental items have had low uptake since they were introduced in July 2004. The new items will be more consistent with the way dentists practise and will cover a broader range of services, including dentures. This, combined with a significant increase in Medicare benefits payable, will make the arrangements much more attractive. The new arrangements will also be widely communicated to both GPs and dentists. Considerable investment by the government in a new School of Dentistry and Oral Health at Charles Sturt University, more rural clinic placements and dental scholarships for Indigenous students will ensure the delivery of services into the future. Quite apart from these new measures, the Commonwealth undertakes a number of other dental health services, including: Medicare benefits for dental services provided to in-patients and patients in public hospitals, including oral surgery, cleft lip and palate and X-rays; Medicare benefits under the cleft palate scheme; subsidised medicines prescribed by dentists under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; and university training of dentists and dental auxiliaries. Today we heard the Minister for Health and Ageing speak about the number of places that have been made available; I think it was in the order of 356 new training places. Also included are dental services provided through community controlled Aboriginal medical services; dental services on Cocos and Christmas islands; private health insurance rebates; and a full range of dental services to Australian defence personnel and the Army reserves and eligible veterans at no charge. Dental services provided through the Local Dental Officer Scheme are a central part of the arrangements for the provision of health care services for eligible veterans, war widows and dependents. I think the criticisms of the opposition are totally unfounded. The Commonwealth is more than pulling its weight in delivering dental services to the community, and the shortfall remains under the responsibility of the state governments. The constituents of Pearce are eager for the government, in general, to improve dental services, with the priority toward preventative dental care, and I fully support the work of the Minister for Health and Ageing thus far to address the needs of people in Pearce and the broader community in delivering dental care services. As always, it is the people in the lower socioeconomic groups, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, who struggle to access dental care. Often it is the people with a disability or a chronic illness, the aged and those on fixed incomes who are the most disadvantaged and are likely to have more serious dental health problems. AJ Spencer, in a paper called What options do we have for organising, providing and funding better public care?, through the Australian Health Policy Institute in Sydney, reported that about 10 per cent of the Australian population suffered complete tooth loss. This rose to 16 per cent in the Indigenous population and to almost 25 per cent for health card holders. One of my constituents wrote to me recently, pleased with the improved resourcing of dental health by the Commonwealth but urging us to do more. This constituent felt that with ‘good economic times and a large budget surplus, we must improve dental services’. As a first step this constituent called for ‘a free course of preventative dental care every two years for low-income Australians’. I am sure that many Australians would support that call, and I am strongly committed to ensuring that all Australians have access to quality, affordable dental care with particular emphasis on preventative care. In the meantime, this bill is a significant step forward, and I give it my wholehearted support. 84 20:19:00 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 0 0 Mr GEORGANAS —I too rise to speak today on the Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Dental Services) Bill 2007. This legislation will do nothing to help hundreds of thousands of individuals within Australia and hundreds of individuals within the electorate of Hindmarsh who have been waiting for dental treatment for many, many years. The proposed legislation is an extension of an existing program that has not serviced the needs of Australians since its implementation in July 2004. That is why, today, the announcement was made that a Rudd Labor government will fund up to one million additional dental consultations for Australians needing dental treatment by establishing a Commonwealth dental health program. I congratulate the federal Leader of the Opposition and the shadow health minister, Nicola Roxon, who came to the electorate of Hindmarsh and heard firsthand from a group of elderly constituents in my electorate their stories of how they have been waiting for years to receive dental treatment. As I said, many of these people were elderly pensioners who cannot afford private treatment or a visit to a private dentist. They told Ms Roxon of their concerns about having to wait for up to five years for a pair of dentures, for example, or about having received dentures many, many years ago but now needing new ones because the dentures they had were not fitted properly. I am very pleased that our shadow minister, Nicola Roxon, took their concerns on board. I am pleased that she heard them and listened to them that day in my electorate office and ensured that we came up with a policy that would assist not only the people we met with but also thousands of Australians around this magnificent continent of ours who, for some reason or other, have been waiting for many years. That ‘some reason or other’, we know very well, refers to one of the first acts of the Howard government: the axing of the Commonwealth dental scheme that serviced many, many people. When that axing took place we saw the waiting lists for dental care skyrocket. A couple of years ago, the Rann Labor government in South Australia injected millions of dollars to make the waiting time reduce from four to five years to two years. The federal Labor leader, Kevin Rudd, today pledged to invest up to $290 million in a Commonwealth dental health program—one of the first programs, as I said, scrapped by the Howard government in 1996. This is the first instalment of Labor’s Commonwealth dental program. The Commonwealth will give the states and territories the funds necessary to play a huge part in reducing our dental waiting lists. This funding will be tied to the states and territories meeting certain standards for dental care, such as providing care to individuals with chronic diseases affected by poor oral health, ensuring the provision of preventative and emergency services and maintaining the current effort. In contrast, since the introduction of the government’s chronic disease scheme, which targets individuals with chronic disease and complex care needs, there has not been any substantial decrease in the number of individuals on the public dental waiting lists. Over the past three years, the scheme has cost $1.8 million and has assisted only 7,000 people, leaving an estimated 650,000 on waiting lists, with no hope of seeing a dentist in the very near future. The government’s chronic disease scheme is overly complex and forces individuals to partake in an extensive referral system with very high copayments. As I said, there are currently 650,000 Australians on public dental waiting lists. In South Australia, as I said, the Rann Labor government has been working hard to reduce the public dental waiting lists—from 49 months in June 2002 to 25 months in February 2007 and down to 23 months in June this year. The huge increase in waiting times is a result of the Howard government axing the Commonwealth dental scheme in 1996; it was one of its first acts as the Commonwealth government. The South Australian government has worked hard to address the problem of dental waiting lists. It has put in over $20 million into the state’s dental program, with $12.9 million allocated in the most recent budget. These extra funds aim at reducing the waiting lists by 10 months by 2010. The Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Dental Services) Bill 2007 will not provide care to the vast majority of those 650,000 Australians who have already waited years for dental treatment. This legislation will increase the funds available in the government’s chronic disease scheme, which is absurd when the program is already failing to meet the needs of thousands of Australians. Dental care is an issue that I have campaigned on strongly and vigorously since my election in 2004. During this time, I have had dozens of Hindmarsh constituents contact me because they are receiving inadequate dental care or they are on extensive waiting lists, with no hope of seeing a dentist in the very near future. At every forum or street corner meeting that I attend in the electorate, the topic of dental care is raised with me. It is an issue that is raised week in, week out. There are continuous phone calls into my office from people who have been waiting on the list for many years and who have all sorts of dental issues that need immediate attention. The Hindmarsh electorate is demographically one of the oldest electorates in the country, and many pensioners are in need of dental care and many of them are receiving inadequate care. They live on a small pension and do not have the money to be able to attend a private dentist. Recent research from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare found that 30 per cent of people deliberately avoid seeking dental treatment as it is too expensive. Many of the individuals who avoid dental treatment are our elderly Australians. At a recent forum that I held in the electorate on this issue, I was introduced to a gentleman who had taken it upon himself to perform his own dental care. This gentleman was elderly, he was a pensioner and he had been on the list for a number of years. This do-it-yourself dentistry has been gaining traction since the federal government abolished the Commonwealth Dental Health Program in 1996. Elderly pensioners such as Mrs Searle and Mrs Thompson, who are only two of the many people who are in need of dental treatment, are being forced to wait for it even though they suffer from ongoing pain and discomfort. They are both no closer to receiving treatment than they were 12 months ago. Maybe the Prime Minister should think of Mrs Searle and Mrs Thompson and how they cannot afford dental treatment when he claims that working families have never been better off. Mrs Searle and Mrs Thompson will not be helped by the government’s proposed Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Dental Services) Bill 2007. A recent study conducted by the Journal of Health in the US found a link between oral health and heart health. The study was able to link gum disease and teeth loss with the occurrence of heart disease. Tooth decay, as we all know, is currently one of Australia’s most prevalent health problems. It is speculated by medical professionals that bacteria in the mouth cause cavities and gum disease. This, in turn, could cause disease to enter the bloodstream, which could potentially cause damage to the body’s key blood vessels and place strain on the heart. During the early years of an individual’s life, oral disease has a huge impact on an individual’s overall health. We believe that it is important to pick up health problems early so that they do not affect a child’s ability to learn and develop at school. We know that poor health in children not only affects their learning but also is a strong predictor of poor health in adulthood. In Australia, there has been an increase in the number of hospitalisations due to poor dental health. There has been a 42 per cent increase in the number of children being treated in private hospitals due to dental cavities. These figures are alarming and are reinforced by a report released by the Australia Fair campaign in August this year, which found that 40 per cent of Australians were unable to access dental care when they needed it. The states and territories need the Commonwealth to play its part by contributing to the alleviation of Australia’s dental crisis and not engaging in the blame game, as we have seen again and again in relation to the many issues that are raised in this parliament. The Howard government has continued to play the blame game with the states on dental health. The Commonwealth continues to try to shift the blame to the states and territories. However, the Commonwealth has the power to take hold of dental services and ensure that adequate dental care is delivered to all Australians. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing, in its report entitled The blame game: report on the inquiry into health funding, made the following recommendation: The Australian Government should supplement state and territory funding for public dental services so that reasonable— and I emphasise ‘reasonable’— access standards for appropriate services are maintained, particularly for disadvantaged groups. This recommendation has, in my view, not been taken seriously by the Commonwealth, as 650,000 Australians are still languishing on public dental waiting lists. The responsibility for the training of dental professionals lies entirely with the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has not planned for ensuring that there is an adequate dental workforce. There are only about 9,000 practising dentists in Australia. These dentists are not distributed evenly or in areas with the highest need. Many of these dentists are in the CBD, business districts, residential suburbs or high-density areas. This workforce shortage has received a lot of attention in the electorate of Hindmarsh, with thousands of individuals signing a petition to increase the number of dentists available in Australia. The community is angry that there are not sufficient dentists available in the public sector and, as a consequence, they are forced to wait for years to see a dentist, without any hope. Labor understands that there needs to be an investment in the dental health area. That is why we announced today that, as a first step, we will be committing to funding up to one million additional dental consultations for all Australians. As I said, this is the first step in Labor’s Commonwealth Dental Health Program, which will aim to service all Australians, including Australian families. Poor dental health impacts on the whole health system. Simple dental treatment can often prevent the development of other, more complex health issues. As an individual’s health condition escalates, they are more frequently hospitalised and there is an increased use of prescription drugs and painkillers. This places an increased burden on our health system. Early prevention of medical conditions is preferable to treating complex and often advanced health conditions. Labor has taken the first steps to addressing Australia’s dental crisis, unlike the government with its Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Dental Services) Bill 2007, which does not provide the dental care that thousands of Australians need. 87 20:32:00 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 0 Mr MURPHY —I oppose the Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Dental Services) Bill 2007. I support the contribution to the debate made by the previous speaker, the member for Hindmarsh. The debate on this bill is timely indeed. It comes during a period when Australia is, undoubtedly, in the middle of a calamitous dental care crisis. Despite living in a First World country, it is absolutely appalling that large chunks of our population are living with Third World mouths. So alarming are the statistics that many members would no doubt have to pinch themselves to see whether what they have just read is true. Currently, there are 650,000 people on public dental waiting lists around Australia. In New South Wales alone there are 178,876 people waiting to be treated, including, appallingly, some 45,000 children. These waiting lists are seemingly carved out of stone, and such is the permanence with which the names are etched into them that Australians have been waiting on these motionless lists for an average of 27 months, many of them waiting years upon years for treatment. That in itself is unacceptable, but there is far more to Australia’s dental care crisis. The Howard government’s dental care credentials only get worse with each published report and survey. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare recently found that 30 per cent of Australians reported avoiding dental care due to cost. Indeed, 20.6 per cent said cost prevented them from having recommended treatment and 18.2 per cent said they would have difficulty paying a $100 bill, as mentioned by previous speakers. Those facts are sobering enough, but the Howard government’s inept response to the dental care catastrophe over 11½ long years has ensured that there is a conveyor belt full of other heartbreaking statistics. Most heartbreaking of all are figures from the New South Wales Chief Health Officer stating that, between 1994 and 2005—more than a decade—the hospitalisation rates for children under five seeking to have their teeth removed or restored has increased by 91 per cent. It is not a record to be proud of. The government should be deeply ashamed that Australian kids, who had the world’s best teeth during the mid-nineties, have seen the state of their teeth spiral downwards over the last decade. The Minister for Health and Ageing should ponder those facts very carefully. He should reflect upon the fact that the Howard government has presided over a 91 per cent increase in hospitalisation rates of our children and the fact that waiting lists have grown out of control and adults cannot afford basic dental treatment. More importantly, the minister should have some humility and accept some responsibility for the fact that Australia is a First World country with many Third World teeth. The response from the minister has truly been inadequate. We have seen the Howard government engaging in yet another round of the blame game, blaming all and sundry for the nation’s ills, without accepting an ounce of responsibility. In his second reading speech, the minister said the measures in this bill ‘will help to further strengthen dental care in Australia’. Putting aside for one moment the folly of that statement, there appears to have been a sudden revelation amongst members of the Howard government that dental care is a serious problem in Australia. You can be certain that it is. And it is no coincidence that the enlightenment has only come at a time when the government tries to bolster its electoral fortunes in the lead-up to an imminent federal election. The minister’s previous responses have been most illuminating and have given a more accurate reflection into the insight of the Howard government. Prior to its flagging electoral fortunes, the minister was quoted as saying: The government believes that it has already taken sufficient action in this area. The minister was also quoted ad nauseam as having said that dental care is a state responsibility. Indeed, the Prime Minister repeated that nonsensical claim today in the House. It is hard to tell whether they are being facetious or whether they are far removed from the reality of the Australian Constitution, as was made plain during question time today. I know that both the minister and the Prime Minister are avid supporters of our constitutional monarchy yet they have seemingly not bothered to take a cursory glance at section 51 of the Constitution, which I will record again in the House today: The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:—         …         …         … (xxiiia.) The provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services ... On our side of the chamber we live in hope that the Howard government will slowly but surely find the will to pursue a just and orderly dental care policy. Given the circumstances, we hoped that the government might develop effective policy solutions to address some of the areas I mentioned earlier. A just and orderly approach to dental care would recognise that 650,000 Australians need to be taken off waiting lists before they develop chronic health problems. A just and orderly approach to dental care policy would attempt to stem the growing tooth decay epidemic by engaging in a broad based public health campaign highlighting preventative oral health care. Having spent years pontificating and blame shifting, with an election looming the government now wants to be seen to be doing something. At five minutes to midnight the government has brought to the parliament a bill that seeks to expand a failing Medicare dental program for people with chronic conditions and complex care needs. After all of the minister’s hot wind and bluster about dental services being a state responsibility, it was pleasing to see the government at least talking about dental care—I will give them credit for that. However, the minister is talking about dental care in such a way that we will not see real solutions to any of the major dental care problems in Australia. That is the truth. Money is being allocated to half-hearted and flawed policy initiatives that will see very few people get the care they so desperately need. Under the government’s initiatives in this bill patients will still need to go through the rigmarole of showing that (1) they have a condition with complex care needs; (2) they have a dental problem which significantly adds to the seriousness of their medical condition; and (3) they are receiving care from a general practitioner under a written management plan. All of this just to get a tooth fixed. What the government is effectively telling Australians on waiting lists is that they must wait until they develop chronic problems before the government will provide assistance. Talk about putting the cart before the horse. The government’s chronic disease management program, to which this bill makes minor changes, has been so poorly designed that very few people have used it since its inception in 2004. I have absolutely no confidence that the bill’s cosmetic changes to threshold amounts and increases in claimable Medicare items will make this program any better. There are a range of other problems besetting the program that this bill does not address, particularly the overly restrictive eligibility criteria. This is not only my view. Professor John Spencer, Professor of Social and Preventive Dentistry at the University of Adelaide, stated in his submission dated 24 August 2007 to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs: I make this submission in response to an invitation to do so. The views expressed are those of an individual dental academic at The University of Adelaide and are not endorsed by any level of the University of Adelaide. The Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Dental Services) Bill 2007 increases access under Medicare to dental treatment for people with chronic conditions and complex care needs. The rationale for this Bill is that people with chronic conditions have poor oral health which can adversely affect their condition or general health. This is an important, albeit very constrained step in improving the oral health and access to dental care among the Australian population. Nonetheless, there are several issues that should be discussed with regard to this Bill and its rationale. First, many Australians who suffer with poor oral health will not obtain dental services through this Bill. This is despite the observation that “You cannot be healthy without oral health” (US Department of Human Services, 2000). This quote from the US Surgeon General challenges the premise of the Bill ‘that poor oral health is only important in so far as it affects a chronic medical condition or its management’. This premise has been previously captured in the phrase ‘medically necessary dental treatment’. However, the quote from the US Surgeon General acknowledges that oral health per se is important, even without an identifiable increase in the severity or complexity of the management of any medical condition. Second, classifying those medical conditions which are adversely affected by poor oral health is a difficult task. Poor oral health may quite plausibly affect nearly all medical conditions through pathways involving reduced ability to chew, altered food choice and decreased nutritional value of foods consumed. Alternatively oral symptoms may adversely affect quality of life, reducing coping and self-efficacy. However, there is lack of research in these areas. There is difficulty in ruling a line between medical conditions which are affected or not by poor oral health. At present any decision about what conditions are included will seem quite arbitrary. Third, the criteria for inclusion of dental services in a GP Management Plan are not defined. Uncertainty about specific medical conditions to be included could lead to either few or many eligible patients receiving dental care. Past experience with much lower rebates was that few eligible patients received dental care. If the new arrangements are more attractive to patients, general medical practitioners and dentists, it is possible that most people under a GP Management Plan and Team Care Arrangements, estimated at approximately 400,000, could desire dental care. At the maximum Medicare benefit for dental services and the level of funding set out in the Financial Impact Statement only some 45,000 people will receive dental care in any year of full funding. How then will the one in eight eligible adults under a GP Management Plan be chosen by their general medical practitioner? Will they be limited to people with particular chronic conditions, specific oral disease or dental treatment needs, financial circumstances, or none of these criteria. Professor Spencer goes on to conclude: The Financial Impact Statement for this Bill outlines a total cost of $384.6 million over 4 years. This will present the second highest outlay on dental services by the Australian Government (the highest is the 30 percent private (dental) health insurance rebate). Such an outlay needs to be actively monitored and evaluated. It is likely that ‘fine tuning’ will be required to ensure satisfactory processes lie behind the provision of Medicare Dental Services and the best outcome is achieved for the expenditure. To inform these judgements, evaluation needs to be conducted at two levels: one among persons receiving Medicare Dental Services, and another at the population level. Among persons receiving Medicare Dental Services profiling of these patients and what services they receive would be an expected routine part of any administrative overview. However, a number of more specific questions might reasonably be asked about the persons receiving Medicare Dental Services: • the reasons for seeking care • the social, medical and other relevant characteristics of those who received care • the oral problems they had • the impact dental care had on their underlying medical condition and its management, and • the perceptions of the process from general medical practitioners dentists and persons involved At the population level it is important to understand the coverage achieved by Medicare Dental Services among those persons with chronic disease and complex needs and those who are under a GP Management Plan and Team Care Arrangement. Such questions can only be answered by planned evaluation activities. The implementation of such evaluation activities early in the program is of high importance if the management of the interface between oral and general health is to be improved in Australia. Those are the words of Professor John Spencer, from the Department of Social and Preventive Dentistry at the University of Adelaide. In my electorate I have been campaigning and fighting for better dental care. Just to give you some insight into how chronic it is in my electorate, at one of my mobile offices, at Concord, a few Saturdays ago an elderly gentleman who was on the pension came up to me with a plastic bag with five dentures in it. This is serious stuff. He had received those from the dental hospital. They were all ill-fitting and he could not use them. As he was speaking to me one of his dentures fell on the ground. He had nowhere to go and he was pleading with me to do something to help him. We all know the importance of maintaining good oral health. Not so long ago I had three crowns fitted and it cost me something like $4,200. My dentist was definite that I had to have them done because, if you do not look after and preserve your teeth, with the pressure that you put on your teeth when you chew and the inevitability of the ageing process, you put the other teeth at risk. Anyone who knows anything about oral hygiene will tell you that you have to do everything possible to look after each and every one of your teeth. The last thing that anyone should be forced to do is take the easy option of pulling out a tooth. Very soon after you take one tooth out, the teeth nearby are under greater stress because they have to work harder. Eventually you lose those teeth and, in the final analysis, you end up with no teeth, and no-one wants that. I hope that the minister takes that on board and has taken note of the announcement made by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for health today in relation to taking responsibility for another one million dental consultations. The government is awash with money—the budget surplus is in excess of $17 billion—and dental health is fundamental for all of us. I think it behoves all of us in a bipartisan way to do something to assist those people, particularly the most vulnerable in our community who are existing on pensions or are self-funded retirees with very limited resources. They clearly cannot afford root canal therapy, crowns and dentures without more assistance from the government. I hope that the minister and the government take that into account and this becomes an important issue at the federal election. 91 20:50:00 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 0 0 Mr PRICE —I, like my Labor colleagues, am speaking on the Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Dental Services) Bill 2007 to oppose it. Surely that must be unusual, because it increases some benefits for people who access the government’s dental program. ‘Why is this so?’ you might ask. Our fellow Australians who are suffering from halitosis, gingivitis, ulcerated mouth, abscesses, chronic infection, sinus pain or, more particularly, the inability to chew properly—which leads to malnutrition—will not necessarily be benefited by the government’s dental health provisions. In fact, to get your teeth fixed you have to have a chronic disease and your dental problems need to impact on that chronic disease. At present we have a waiting list of 650,000 people across the nation. That is a staggering figure: 650,000 people on our dental waiting lists for public dental treatment. Question time was most illuminating. The Minister for Health and Ageing, when he was talking about Labor’s new policy, said that we were stealing $100 million. What are the facts? The facts are that when the Howard government came to office it decided to abolish the existing pensioner dental health program. In its last full year of operation, that program assisted over 600,000 people and was costing $100 million a year. What happened? It got abolished, or it was not re-funded—whichever makes you feel most comfortable. For 11 years, the Commonwealth has been saving that $100 million. You could say that the people of Australia have been robbed not of $100 million, which is what the government accuses the opposition of, but $1.1 billion. The Prime Minister is always fond of saying that this is all the responsibility of the states—‘It was ever thus, and they’re not doing their job.’ What is the truth? What is the reality? That is what the Prime Minister said in this parliament, but what is the truth; what is the reality? The state and territory governments, after the abolition of a highly successful program which helped our fellow Australians, have doubled the money that they spend. Notwithstanding that doubling of the money, we still have waiting lists of 650,000 people. It is an outrage; it is a scandal. How many people have been assisted by the Commonwealth’s program? It has complex criteria. To become eligible, you have to be chronically ill, not with teeth problems but with other problems, and your teeth have to impact on that illness. In three years, some 7,200-odd people have benefited from this program. Contrast that to what Labor was doing. In the last full year of the pensioner dental health program, over 600,000 benefited—that was in one year. This current program has benefited 7,000 people over three years. The measures in this bill are not designed to add to or increase the number of people who are going to take it up. It is not as though we are going to go from 7,000 over three years to 70,000 over three years or 700.000 over three years. It is not going to increase, because of the complex eligibility criteria associated with the government’s dental health scheme. As my colleague the honourable member for Lowe mentioned, we have announced a new program. I am pleased that we have for this reason: whenever I go to pensioner groups in particular the one question I get asked all the time is whether we are going to do something about dental health. Are we going to do something about the disgraceful length of the queue for those waiting for attention for their teeth? I am really pleased to say that, yes, we are. I was always confident that we would, and we are. We are not assisting 7,000 over three years; we are not assisting 70,000 over three years; we are not assisting 700,000 over three years. We are providing, for one million consultations over three years, $290 million. Whichever way you want to play the figures, that is going to impact hugely on people in that queue. As I said at the beginning of my contribution, if you have halitosis, gingivitis, an ulcerated mouth, sinusitis, chronic infection, pain or more particularly the inability to chew properly and you are eligible for public dental health treatment, this is going to benefit you. You do not have to have a heart problem. You do not have to have high blood pressure. You do not have to have any other chronic disease to benefit from Labor’s initiative—that is, one million consultations over three years. I am pleased. In my electorate there used to be only one public clinic, the one at Mount Druitt Hospital. It is named after the late May Coupe, who did so much with the ladies auxiliary at that hospital. I have been there and I have seen the empty dental chairs that would be able to be fired up with this initiative. Blacktown Hospital, which I have now inherited, also has a public dental clinic. I must confess I have not trooped around to have a look at it, but I am going to be highly motivated, given what the Prime Minister and the minister for health said today about who is robbing who. I am going to have a look at Blacktown, but I am very confident that there is spare capacity there. The only time that it really ran at capacity was when Labor was in government and we had the pensioner dental health program. It is going to be good news for my electorate. I suppose the most disappointing thing is that, if you look at any of the statistics about dental health, we are going backwards in Australia. Tooth decay ranks as Australia’s most prevalent health problem. The government is not interested unless you have another associated problem. But tooth decay is our No. 1 public health problem, and this legislation is not going to have an impact on that. Twenty-five per cent of Australia’s adult population has untreated dental decay. How can a government be proud of that? I oppose the government’s bill but I fully support the announcement that Labor made today. Debate interrupted. 93 Adjournment 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 9 pm, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. 93 93 21:00:00 Draper, Trish, MP 0L6 Makin LP 1 0 Mrs DRAPER —Earlier today I made my valedictory speech, as the chamber would know, and I did not have the chance to finish—I ran out of time. I did not get to speak about my son Chris’s 24th birthday on Friday, my son Graham’s impending wedding on 10 November or my son Michael studying at the University of South Australia to be a teacher. So I would like to seek leave of the House for the rest of my speech to be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The remainder of the speech read as follows— Finally, I would like to thank my family for their support and encouragement over the past 13 years, dating back to my pre-selection in 1994. All 3 of my sons were present for my maiden speech in 1996. At that stage they were 7, 9 and 12, (at pre-selection 5, 7 & 10) so young and had sacrificed so much during the campaign to assist in every way possible. Many evenings and weekends were spent by them in many different duties. The going rate for folding and stuffing envelopes was 50 cents per 1000. They have had to miss their mum whilst I undertook my many electorate & Parliamentary duties. It has not always been easy, especially early on when the travel to Canberra had begun in earnest. They have all handled the responsibility with maturity and I am immensely proud of the men they have become today. Chris will be turning 24 on Friday, so Happy Birthday my son. Chris is studying economics at the University of Adelaide and having just established his own small business, I have no doubt that he will succeed in the ventures he undertakes in the future, and maybe be able to employ young people when he finishes working in politics. Chris being the oldest has given so much in supporting the family and holding things together. Graham has just had his 21st birthday and will soon complete his carpentry apprenticeship. He is also hoping to advance further at our local church where he is a youth leader. We are all looking forward to his impending marriage to Lisa-Marie in November and I would like to take this opportunity to wish them both a long, happy and successful life together. And I hope that he doesn’t take too long to have one for mum, one for dad and one for the country and even one for me. Michael, my youngest, is now 19 and is studying a teaching degree at the University of SA at Mawson Lakes. I have no doubt he will make an excellent P.E. teacher and will be a role-model for all of his students, whom it is often said, look to their teachers for guidance in their adolescent school years. I would like to thank St Paul’s College, in particular Principal Peter Shannahan and Brother Coglin for their dedication to the students at St Pauls, particularly my sons. I would also like to acknowledge my parents who instilled in me the passion to stand up for what I believe in, even if it means going against the grain and taught me the value of hard work, loyalty, teamwork and family values. And yes, Dad still has his banjo. I thank him for keeping me grounded and focussed throughout my tenure and involvement in politics. My Dad was a small business man working for himself for many years. I am sorry that my mother had passed away at an early age and was not alive to witness the success of her daughter or meet her grand children, but she did get to see me join the Navy and begin my career in nursing. So, in conclusion, as I leave the Australian Federal Parliament, I look forward to spending more time with my husband Don, my children and family. I promise there will be no more signing or mountains of paperwork filling up the house! Although, I do intend to write a book over the next couple of years. My family means a lot to me and words cannot express my gratitude for your support and my immense pride and affection, I have for you all. What I also said on being first elected to this place was, and I quote, “Christopher, Graham and Michael have had to come to terms with their mother coming to Canberra, but can I say to my boys that what their mother hopes to achieve in this place is to secure a better Australia for them and their generation, which can provide a lifestyle and job opportunities to allow them to achieve their aspirations in the future” And that is what we have achieved with the great team of the Hon John Howard, Peter Costello and great Ministry and the wealth of skills and experience we have among our backbench. But there is still more to do. On that note, I would like to thank the electors of Makin, the many community clubs and sporting organisations, RSL Clubs and their leaders and all of the churches and their leaders for the opportunity to serve them in this place and conclude by extending my best wishes to my colleagues and friends on both sides of the house, the Speaker, the Clerk of the House, John Anderson, Jimmy Lloyd the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads, Peter Slipper, Dr Mal Washer, Kay Hull, John Burston, Brian Loughnane the Federal Director, the Parliamentary Library Staff, the Hansard Staff and Pastor Rod Denton of the Clover Crest Baptist Church and also Jim Wallace from the Australian Christian Lobby. I would also like to thank our fantastic Defence Forces for the job they do in defending our country, our police, doctors, nurses, foster carers, volunteers, ambulance members, fire fighters, SES, CFS. I will indeed miss this place, but it is now a new journey that I embark upon that I look forward to and find great encouragement from my family, colleagues friendships and kind wishes. Thank you again to the constituents of Makin for the privilege given to me to serve Australia and be your voice in Makin—God Bless you all. 94 94 21:00:00 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP 0 0 Mr GARRETT —Australian artists would be justified in believing that the coalition harbours a latent, sometimes visible, hostility to them and their calling. I have argued in other places that the absence of genuine and regular expressions of support and encouragement for the arts in all its myriad forms from the Prime Minister and senior ministers is emblematic of the Howard government’s attitude to the arts in Australia. There have been no voices raised by government ministers to defend artists’ freedom of expression. Instead, the coalition—purvey-ors of ersatz jingoism and faux nationalism—rarely speak to praise the great reservoir of artistic work and the ongoing current and contemporary expressions of creativity, the poems, the plays and the pictures, that so form and inspire our national consciousness and our communities right around Australia. In fact, it is the case that the coalition are hostile and indifferent to Australian artists and their work, particularly if it seems to voice a view or an opinion contrary to theirs. The cultural, social and economic contribution the arts make to our country is neither recognised nor acknowledged. The coalition, for all their blue-blooded adherence to the monarchy and notions of excellence, remain bound in a cloth of ideology—it is postmodern philistinism of the worst kind. In question time today, the Treasurer’s attack on Labor’s proposals to develop social security and an arts policy made that clear. He is presumably unaware of the average yearly income of working artists in Australia—around $12,000—and that many working artists do indeed at different times in their lives interact with the social security system. He is also clearly unaware that Labor’s ideas, drawing on experience in other countries, are to enable the social security system to better equip artists for future work—what a radical notion—so that people might earn more income to feed their families. Yes, Treasurer, artists do have families too. Instead, the member for Higgins chose to belittle artists. He said: What exactly is keeping them from producing their art? ... ‘Poor old artists—they are on welfare and they do not have enough time to paint. We had better intervene.’ Then: I do not think that is so onerous that somebody who is on welfare needs more time to produce their art. What a cheap, glib and completely out-of-touch characterisation of Australia’s working artists. In fact, enabling some of the poorest working people in Australia to reduce their time on welfare and increase their job-seeking capacity is Labor’s intention. But the Treasurer is in complete ignorance of that necessary and proper public policy goal. Instead, this now tragic figure, he who would be Prime Minister but is destined, it seems, by his own lack of courage and imagination—a quality that Australian artists have in abundance—to play second string has decided to attack those who play first string, those artists who by their creative endeavour add immeasurably to the soul of Australia, those artists who enrich our lives through the many forms of work that they produce—music, painting, poetry, sculpture, digital art. In all the forms available to human expression, Australian artists are shaping and informing our character, and nourishing our democracy and our sense of who we are. Yet today in question time in the House of Representatives the Treasurer in the Howard government chose instead to denigrate them, to belittle them and to abuse them. What a shocking display of philistinism and ignorance from this person who will never lead this country. The Howard government team is truly no longer deserving of the support or, indeed, of any respect from the Australian population. 95 95 21:05:00 Mirabella, Sophie, MP 00AMU Indi LP 1 0 Mrs MIRABELLA —It is not with any pleasure that I rise this evening but I do so on a matter of extreme importance, particularly in my home state of Victoria. It is said that one of the defining features of a civilised democracy is its ability not only to enact laws for good government and civil society but also to enforce them. An integral part of that is to have faith in an unblemished and uncorrupted police force that enforces these laws. In Victoria we are not immune. Many years ago, Victorians would make fun of the stories of corruption in New South Wales and Queensland. But what we have come to understand over the last few years is that Victoria is just the same, if not worse, because of recent denials. We saw over 3½ years ago the state government and the police force dismissing links between organised crime, the gangland murders, which at that time were over 30, and the police force. But now we are told that this is not the case. We have the deputy commissioner saying: I am happy to concede there is now evidence allegedly linking police corruption and organised crime killings. And: But the point is, we’ve found it, we will follow it. It has been reported in the media for years, and the Victorian public has known it is there. Why has there been such gutlessness and spinelessness from a government that was elected to protect those very basic freedoms of Victorians and to ensure that the Victorian police force was not just hand in glove with corrupt organised criminal gangs? The state government has consistently argued that there is no link between police corruption and organised crime, but people are not fools: if it smells like corruption, it is corruption. We are now told that it is not the case, which I suppose is welcome, belatedly—it is a far cry from the police top brass last week conceding for the first time that there was indeed a link. We have heard unsavoury details of corrupt police being involved in the cover-up of the death of a male prostitute in 2003 and other alleged killings. In Victoria, there is an Office of Police Integrity, which in effect is an organisation set up by police to investigate police. It is, quite simply, not good enough. You would struggle to find any objective Victorian who would say that this organisation will get to the bottom of this insidious sickness that has beset the Victorian police force. The new premier, Premier John Brumby—like his predecessor, Steve Bracks—refuses to contemplate a royal commission or anticorruption inquiry. What is he afraid of finding out? Why does he not let outsiders delve into this very serious issue? Ironically, whilst the federal Labor opposition say they will now commission more than 90 new inquiries if they win government—and the Victorian Labor government has commissioned hundreds of inquiries to look into all sorts of things—Labor cannot bring themselves to commission an inquiry that will matter. They cannot bring themselves to commission an inquiry that will bring some benefit to Victoria and to good governance—that is, a royal commission to investigate one of the most important and pressing emergencies facing Victoria today. I mentioned some years ago in an adjournment debate in this chamber that it is time to get to the bottom of this perversion that currently engulfs the Victorian police force. What confidence can Victorians have in their police force if they are held to account by some law-abiding police officer for some misdemeanour or another when they know that there is this endemic corrupt culture within the police force? What sort of confidence and cooperation do the Victorian government and the Victorian police force expect when people know—and they have known for years—that there are criminals dressed up as policemen in Victoria? (Time expired) 96 96 21:10:00 Elliot, Justine, MP DZW Richmond ALP 0 0 Mrs ELLIOT —I rise tonight to speak on dental health, an issue which I have raised many times in the House. Dental health is a major concern in my electorate, as it is right throughout Australia. I will start by focusing on federal Labor’s plan to fix the dental health crisis, including the announcement earlier today of the first instalment of Labor’s Commonwealth dental program. This plan involves a Rudd Labor government funding up to one million additional dental consultations for Australians needing dental treatment by establishing a Commonwealth dental health program with funding of $290 million. This is part of federal Labor’s determination to take national leadership and to end the blame game in health, which we have seen so many times from the Howard government. I commend the opposition leader’s and the shadow health minister’s announcement. It will certainly go a long way to fixing the dental health crisis. There are 650,000 Australians on public dental waiting lists throughout the country. That is a staggering number of people who, often very desperately, need dental care. The Howard government’s record on dental health is indeed shameful; in fact, it ripped $100 million from the Commonwealth dental health program in 1996. Now, all the government seem to do is play the blame game with dental health. In my electorate of Richmond, one of the major issues raised by local seniors and families is the lack of affordable dental care. Indeed, many families and seniors are forced to make very stark choices between dental treatment and other day-to-day necessities. It is an absolute disgrace that locals have been missing out on this very vital health service just because they cannot afford to see a dentist when they desperately need to. Over 4,000 locals have signed my petition that calls for the reinstatement of a Commonwealth dental health scheme. Many of the stories that locals have told me about their desperate need for dental health care are horrific: some are in extreme pain; some are barely able to eat or speak; for some, their dentures are falling out of their mouths; and some have even had to resort to pulling out their own teeth. This is not just unacceptable; it is indeed shameful. The waiting list for dental services in my electorate of Richmond can sometimes be years and years, and this situation is happening right across the country. The 2007 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report concludes that 30 per cent of Australians reported avoiding dental care due to the cost, and over 20 per cent said that cost had prevented them from having recommended dental treatment. Everyone is sick and tired of the Howard government playing the blame game and denying its responsibility for providing dental care. It is very disappointing that the Howard government has not taken seriously its responsibility for dental health. It has failed to hear the concerns of Australians, and it shows yet again how out of touch it is. My frustration at this situation is exacerbated by the fact that proper investment in dental care is also good economic management. Every year thousands of patients, including alarming numbers of children, are admitted to hospital wards because they were not able to access proper and affordable dental services. So an added burden is being placed on our health services that could be alleviated by reinstating a Commonwealth dental scheme. All we get from the coalition is buck-passing and carping about the states. The fact is that state and territory governments have invested in dental care, but they need a federal government that is prepared to fulfil its responsibility. To enlighten coalition members, I draw their attention to section 51 of the Australian Constitution, which gives the federal government responsibility for dental care. Dental care is not just important for teeth; it is also very important for overall health because poor dental health can contribute to a deterioration in one’s health. By not providing adequate public dental care and not training enough dentists, the Howard government is putting the health of Australians at risk. It is time to stop the buck-passing and to reinstate a Commonwealth dental program, and that is what a Rudd Labor government will do. Let us end the blame game. Let us see a federal government working cooperatively with the states to ensure that services are delivered and to make sure that there is adequate health care for those who need it. That is what a Rudd Labor government will do. This is an issue that requires national leadership. It is not about blaming; it is about fixing. And that is what a Rudd Labor government will do. Labor will do that because we acknowledge that it is a federal government responsibility to provide dental care. It is only through the election of a Rudd Labor government that Australians will finally get the dental care that they so desperately need and deserve. 98 98 21:15:00 Johnson, Michael, MP 00AMX Ryan LP 1 0 Mr JOHNSON —I am very honoured to speak in the Australian parliament tonight as the federal member for Ryan, a beautiful part of the western suburbs that I represent and indeed have lived in for nearly 25 years. Tonight I want to talk about climate change, because this is a very important issue for the constituents of Ryan. Climate change is a truly global problem and it requires a global solution. That is why I think APEC was so important. Sydney and Australia were very proud to have an international gathering of leaders coming from far away—leaders of some of the most significant countries on the face of the earth. I want to take this opportunity in the parliament—as someone who is a very strong supporter of APEC, someone who is a very strong supporter of Australia’s engagement with the world and someone who is a very strong promoter of Australian businesses exporting to the world—to commend the government and particularly the Prime Minister for his chairmanship of APEC and his leadership in bringing the major powers of the world together, and to highlight the profound importance of the Sydney declaration that came out of APEC. I think that most Australians will appreciate how important this is. To bring together three of the major countries of the world—China, Russia and the United States—to agree to aspirational targets is a very significant first step. I am delighted that the Minister for Trade is in the House. I noticed his very strong involvement in APEC in trying to persuade his counterparts in those countries how important it is to liberalise their markets, which creates opportunities for businesses both in this country and their countries. That brings economic opportunities and prosperity to all these countries, which allows us to explore new technologies to address the challenges of climate change. I want to put on the record in the parliament that I am a very big supporter of all alternative and renewable forms of energy. I very much support investment in wind power, biomass, tidal power, geothermal and nuclear. I am happy to put on the record that I do support nuclear being put into the mix as an option for Australia’s future energy and environmental benefit. However, I also want to put on the record very strongly that, out of all the alternative sources of energy, I am especially a big supporter of solar energy. I am convinced that, of all the forms of renewable energy for our country, it is solar energy that has the greatest potential. Unfortunately, the take-up of solar energy coverage in Australia is terribly low. The most recent available ABS figures on this area are 2005 figures. They reflect that, of the 7.9 million households in Australia, only 409,000 households use some form of solar energy device. Of these, 350,000 or 86 per cent use solar for heating water. Of course, those households are reaping the benefit of reduced power bills. The national average for household coverage of solar energy in Australia is a mere 5.2 per cent. In my home state of Queensland, solar energy coverage in households is 6.6 per cent. So in the sunshine state we have solar energy coverage for only 6.6 per cent of households. The highest figure is 44 per cent in the Northern Territory. The second highest figure is 27 per cent in Western Australia. The lowest figure is just two per cent for Victoria. In Queensland, the sunshine state, there is a long way to go to try to encourage Queenslanders to go solar—to bring into their homes solar energy devices. I want to encourage all the people of Ryan to participate in a campaign to go solar as much as possible. I understand that the amount of solar energy that bathes our country on one summer day alone is equivalent to half the total energy that the whole world consumes. I find that figure enormously tantalising. I do not know how they calculate it, but I am assured by the experts that that is the case. What enormous potential there would be for not only Australia but also the world if we could somehow capture that enormous amount of power and energy and convert it to meet the energy demands of our country and, indeed, the world. 99 99 21:20:00 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 0 0 Mr GEORGANAS —I rise to speak tonight on an issue that affects thousands of constituents in the Hindmarsh electorate, and that is aircraft noise. I am in continual contact with residents in many suburbs surrounding the airport, especially Brooklyn Park but also many other suburbs such as Cowandilla, Mile End, Richmond, West Richmond, West Beach, Glenelg North and Henley Beach. These residents are constantly in contact with me. They spend hours upon hours listening to aircraft noise and aircraft flying over their homes without any avenue for recourse. A number of residents I represent have asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services to answer their questions about aircraft movements at Adelaide Airport, and we wrote to the minister on behalf of these constituents. Unfortunately, as yet we have not received a response from the minister—and it has been well over three months. For the record, these are the questions which remain unanswered: (1) when were the last noise assessments carried out for aircraft arriving and departing from Adelaide Airport; (2) what were the results of these assessments; (3) what are the current flight paths for aircraft arriving and departing from Adelaide Airport; (4) at what time and how frequently do aircraft fly during the curfew; (5) is there a possibility that the current flight paths will be reassessed; (6) will consideration be given to an extension of the Adelaide Airport insulation program and, if so, what residences will the insulation cover; (7) are there any funds left in the Adelaide Airport insulation program that may be used to insulate more houses; and (8) has there been an increase in the number of aircraft flying over residential areas since the extension and the new terminal were created at Adelaide Airport? I began campaigning for a curfew and noise insulation program initially with the Adelaide Airport Action Group, which is a residents group within the electorate of Hindmarsh, many years before I was a candidate or MP. I had the good fortune of chairing that particular residents group for many years. I have continued to lobby on this issue and I have raised it constantly since I have been a member of parliament. So I am familiar with the struggle for those residents and their rights. Through the Adelaide Airport Action Group we lobbied very hard throughout the nineties right up to 2000, and we got a curfew introduced. Finally, the Adelaide Airport Curfew Act was established. It imposed a penalty for breach of the curfew. Not that any penalties have ever been issued—it is a bit of a joke; restricted aircraft movements during the curfew do come in. Some flights that have exemptions come in during curfew hours. The act provides for a designated curfew from 11 pm to 6 am with shoulder hours from 11 pm to 12 pm. The residents wanted a noise insulation program akin to that operating at Sydney airport, but again they had to fight tooth and nail to get it. Finally, in May 2000 it was announced. There were also a number of development issues around the Adelaide Airport. Adelaide Airport, as we all know, is on Commonwealth land and therefore federal legislation overrides state legislation and local government legislation. That means that planning decisions are not subject to the same checks and balances as they would be under the state and local government system. The federal government will not take responsibility for the developments on Adelaide Airport land, even though this is designated Commonwealth land. This is another example of the Commonwealth shirking its responsibilities. I introduced a private member’s bill earlier this year. I call on the government and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services to allow me to debate the bill, but I assume that my pleas will fall on deaf ears. I have written several letters to the transport minister about these issues and I will continue to do so. The minister continues to ignore the pleas of the residents in those suburbs that I mentioned earlier, and those residents are still subject to noise generated from the grounds of Adelaide Airport and from planes overhead. The minister continues to hide behind the legislation of the Airports Act 1999 and the Airport (Environment Protection) Regulations 1997 and claims that the residents in these suburbs are not eligible for insulation. To take a quote from recent correspondence from the minister: While I understand your concerns and those of your constituents living near the boundaries, the boundary must be drawn somewhere and the Australian government has made this decision in as fair and equitable manner as possible. I do not think it is good enough to have insulation of homes in a particular street where one side gets the insulation and the other side does not. Aircraft noise that is generated above those homes is exactly the same if you live on one side of the street compared to the other. (Time expired) 100 100 21:25:00 Fawcett, David, MP DYU Wakefield LP 1 0 Mr FAWCETT —I rise tonight to address the House on an issue of significance around Australia but also in the electorate of Wakefield: the difficult issue of suicide. There are a couple of initiatives that I would particularly like to touch on tonight and to raise awareness of because I am very keen to see people taking up the resources that are being made available to help our mates in the community. The Prime Minister recently, at the RSL national congress, made an announcement about a new initiative called Operation Life. This announcement has been largely overshadowed by the very welcome announcements about the indexation of the TPI pension for veterans. I certainly welcome the $330 million package that the Prime Minister announced—both the indexation and the increases across the entire general rate table. Whilst there have been many comments—and I accept some of those comments—that this has been far too long coming, I welcome the announcement. I would also like to particularly acknowledge the work of a number of ESOs around the country who have not held back and have not given up the fight to see this delivered. I would particularly like to acknowledge the work of Blue Ryan, who has worked with members on my side and opposite. I would like to acknowledge the work of Graham Edwards opposite, as well as people like Jo Gash on the government side, who have consistently taken up this issue along with many members. I am pleased to see that there has been a very positive outcome. I would particularly again like to recognise the work that Blue Ryan has done so tirelessly on behalf of veterans in the country. He deserves great credit for that. But the announcement I wish to focus on tonight is the one that was made about Operation Life, a $2.3 million program which has been developed jointly between the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, the Department of Health and Ageing and the Defence Force and endorsed by the National Veterans Mental Health and Wellbeing Forum. It takes a three-pronged approach to suicide prevention to enhance the resilience and health of veterans and their families, to increase the literacy and awareness of mental health issues, and to ensure the timely access to appropriate and effective services. These are men and women and their families who have had battles in the past, and who still have battles, and it is important that we reach out to assist them through this process. I want to also talk about other people who are still having real battles today, particularly people in rural communities, as we face yet another crop failure in the areas of Wakefield and north. I have spoken to a number of people recently who are very concerned about their communities and about mental health and the impact on people who are battling not only climate but also debilitating mental conditions—the depression and the sense of shame, in some cases, that affect people who are facing losing a farm or a property that has been in the family for several generations. The government recently announced that it is again putting money into the Mental Health Support for Drought-Affected Communities. There are three components: crisis counselling and outreach services for individuals affected by the drought, providing mental health training to community leaders and raising community awareness about mental health issues and services, and providing training and education and support for clinicians to recognise and respond to the early signs of emotional distress. In Wakefield’s case this is being executed on the ground by the Mid North Division of Rural Medicine. The reason I want to bring this to the attention of the House tonight, and to people who hopefully will be reading this in Hansard, is to encourage people to take the opportunities to inform themselves of the resources available through GPs and other people and allied health areas through initiatives such as beyondblue—which the government is supporting significantly not only for the rural sector but also for others—so that we can be informed and aware of the signs and symptoms in those around us whom we may be able to help. This is not just family but people who are stock agents, policemen in communities and publicans. There is a whole range of people who need to be aware, because they are the people who are in contact with these farmers who are facing this battle as we speak. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 9.30 pm, the debate is interrupted. 101 21:30:00 House adjourned at 9.30 pm 102 Questions in Writing 102 102 6053 102 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP 0 Mr McClelland asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 19 June 2007: In respect of contract number 1659282 for property expenses: (a) to which property does the contract relate; (b) what is the nature of the expense; (c) what does the contract include; and (d) what is the cost breakdown of the $486,800.82 contract in terms of (i) items and (ii) services. In respect of contract number 1657999 for furniture: (a) to which Head of Mission residence does the contract relate; (b) which furniture items does the contract include; (c) what is the cost breakdown of the $49,146.00 contract in terms of (i) items and (ii) services; and (d) how many people occupy the residence to which the contract relates. In respect of contract number 1658151 for art lease: (a) what specific artworks will the lease cover; (b) what is the unit cost of each artwork; and (c) where will the artworks be displayed. In respect of contract numbers 1664547 and 1664540 for wines: (a) what is meant by the term ‘representational costs’; (b) what is the cost breakdown in terms of (i) products and (ii) quantity; and (c) where have the products been used and distributed. In respect of contract number 1663995 for a copyright licence fee: (a) for what specific uses of copyright was this fee paid and (b) how and where were the copyrighted items used. In respect of contract number 1664010 for property refurbishment: (a) what is the location of the property to be refurbished; (b) what are the details of the refurbishments; and (c) what is the cost breakdown of the $263,621.94 contract in terms of (i) items and (ii) services. In respect of contract number 1663992 for translating and interpreting services: (a) what are the details of the services provided; (b) in which languages were services provided; and (c) are the language skills identified in Part (7)(b) not available in his department. In respect of contract number 1663988 for building materials: (a) what specific building materials will be provided under the contract; (b) where will the building materials be used; (c) what is the cost breakdown of the $85,699.15 contract in terms of (i) items and (ii) services; and (d) why was the selected contractor chosen. 102 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: and (b) The expenditure was for security-related construction work on the chancery compound in Riyadh (not furniture, as mistakenly reported in the gazette). (c) and (d) It is not the practice of the Government to provide details of security works The expenditure related to the Australian Government-owned Head of Mission residence in Seoul. (b) The items covered by the contract comprised furniture and fittings for the residence reception area, entrance hallway and living room, shelving, and new lighting, drapes and floor rugs. Furniture items were chairs, cabinets and tables for the reception room, console and mirror for the entrance hall, and wall storage, shelving, sofa and tables for the private living room. Fittings comprised lighting for the entrance hall, reception and dining rooms, and rugs, drapes and curtains for the reception, dining, private living and master bedroom. (c) Furniture items cost $74,955. Fittings cost $35,410. The total cost of items was $110,365. Services (shipping and insurance) cost $12,500. The total cost of the furniture and fittings contract including shipping and insurance was $122,865. The payment was made in two parts. An amount of $73,719 was paid in advance on order. The remaining amount of $49,146 was the second and final payment made on pre-delivery. Payment of the amount of $73,719 was gazetted under contract ID number 1647129. Payment of $49,146 was gazetted under contract ID number 1657999. One person currently occupies the residence. see table below. (b) see table below. (c) The artworks are displayed in the public areas of the R G Casey Building  Name of artwork (a)  Artist Rental paid by DFAT (b) Beach City, La Perouse Bryan Westwood $247.50 Inside Looking Out June Stephenson $178.75 Raising the Sky David Aspden $632.50 Signus XI Sydney Ball $55.00 Newcastle Harbour Margaret Olley $825.00 Broken Fence and House, Baerami Max Watters $275.00 The Overpass Jeffrey Smart $1,375.00 Forest Floor II Joy Hutton $27.50 Forest Floor Joy Hutton $27.50 In The Capertee Valley Robert Johnson $412.50 Palm Tree Shadow Ronald Hawke $137.50 Untitled Charlie Marshall Tjungurrayi $440.00 Untitled Gideon Tjupurrula $110.00 Aviary – The Ornithologist Colin Lanceley $247.50 Templestowe Landscape Ron Reynolds $41.25 Currawong in Firewheel Tree Leslie Van Der Sluys $41.25 Glowing Gorge Ulrich Stalph $110.00 Bush Church with Green Door Max Watters $275.00 Untitled Artist Unknown (Indig.) $178.75 The Farewell Charles Blackman $825.00 Untitled Michael Nelson Jagamara $275.00 Untitled Paddy Carroll Tjungurrayi $275.00 Untitled Dorothy Djukulul $275.00 Untitled (Dissected Kangaroo) Bruce Bilinyara Nabegeyo $330.00 Morning Star Terry Yumbulul $110.00 Williamstown Ross Moore $123.75 Road to Elaine, Late Afternoon Peter Simpson $206.25 Daisies and Cornflowers Jan Mitchell $27.50 Poppies Jan Mitchell $27.50 Fatal Shore Rohan Robinson $178.75 Imaginary Landscape – Tas. Raymond Arnold $110.00 Lilies and Lantana David Preston $41.25 Irises David Preston $41.25 Emu and Turkey Doris Gingingara $41.25 Grinding Stones and Tree Bark Doris Gingingara $41.25 Spring, Bulla I Roy Churcher $41.25 Untitled Andrew Southall $206.25 Wangat Diptych Sally Robinson $41.25 Untitled (from vis-à-vis) Susan Norrie $825.00 Smoko Salvatore Zofrea $41.25 Kids help with Chaff Cutting Salvatore Zofrea $41.25 Landscape Stephanie Tabram $165.00 Stony Creek Kerry Gregan $41.25 Cloud Over Past Generations Bronwyn Bancroft $41.25 Coming Home Bronwyn Bancroft $41.25 Untitled Mabel Juli $275.00 Straw Necked Ibises Leslie Van Der Sluys $41.25 My name is George… Julie Dowling $247.50 My name is Julie… Julie Dowling $247.50 My name is Mary… Julie Dowling $247.50 My name is Ruth… Julie Dowling $247.50 Biggibilla Tiddalick Bogan $41.25 Biggibilla Dinwan $41.25 Hollow Log Coffin Jimmy Angunguna $137.50 Hollow Log Coffin Jacky Maranbarra $137.50 Hollow Log Coffin Jimmy Angunguna $137.50 Hollow Log Coffin Matilda Pascoe $123.75 Hollow Log Coffin Jimmy Angunguna $178.75 Mimi spirit Jacky Atjarral $110.00 Mimi spirit Jacky Atjarral $110.00 Mimi spirit Jacky Atjarral $110.00 Mimi spirit Jacky Atjarral $110.00 Mimi spirit Jackie Marilain $137.50 Male Wangura Spirit figure Jacky Maranbarra $220.00 Female Wangura Spirit Figure Jacky Maranbarra $220.00 Spirit Being Jack Nawilil $137.50 Clearing Weather - Cressy David Chapman $275.00 Seasonal Understanding Bronwyn Bancroft $275.00 Darter and Manfgove Sonneratai Leslie Van Der Sluys $41.25 Noisy Friar Birds, Banksia Leslie Van Der Sluys $41.25 Like a River Philip Cooper $275.00 Redbank Gorge Geoff La Gerche $275.00 After Grass Fire, Flinders Is. Fred Williams $1,320.00 Banks of the Hopkins River Martin Jones $82.50 Marigolds and Prickly Pears Margaret Olley $1,265.00 Flying Insect Painting Michael Taylor $275.00 The Lady and the Unicorn Arthur Boyd $82.50 The Lady and the Unicorn Arthur Boyd $82.50 The Lady and the Unicorn Arthur Boyd $82.50 The Lady and the Unicorn Arthur Boyd $82.50 The Lady and the Unicorn Arthur Boyd $82.50 Divider Graeme Altmann $275.00 Pike River Landscape No. 1 Tony Flint $82.50 Forest No. 1 Tony Flint $82.50 B1 – Wild Thing David Keeling $275.00 Moon Viewing Platform 2 Max Miller $247.50 The Lady and the Unicorn Arthur Boyd $82.50 Southern Harbour David Chapman $440.00 Island Village Ray Crooke $825.00 Convict Sir Sidney Nolan $550.00 Sewing Wheat Bags, Hot Sun Ian W. Abdulla $206.25 Food, Weapons and Instruments Robert Campbell Jnr $632.50 Stripe dupun Namiyal Bopirri $137.50 Dupun (Hollow log coffin) Namiyal Bopirri $137.50 Wititj and Hollow Log Namiyal Bopirri $275.00 Fall from Grace Pam Debenham $27.50 Australian Lotus Bird Leslie Van Der Sluys $41.25 Migration of Butterflies Elaine Haxton $41.25 98 works of art Total rent for contract $22,206.25 Representation expenditure is a tool of trade to be used by each post for the promotion of Australia’s interests. It is primarily intended to facilitate contacts with politicians, government, civic and military officials, business people, journalists, academics and other influential people and organisations in the host country that will assist the employee in promoting Australia’s interests and policies and in seeking information that will form the basis of future reporting. (b) Post purchased 79 cases of Australian wine at a cost of AUD 14,137 for use at official representational functions at the Australian Embassy over a period of eighteen months. The remaining cost of AUD 995 was paid for freight and insurance. (c) The representational functions have been held at the Ambassador’s residence at the Embassy or, on occasion, at commercial premises. More than two thirds of the wine is yet to be consumed and is stored at the Ambassador’s residence with stocks checked on a regular basis. This fee was paid in relation to the reproduction of copyright material in accordance with the Agreement between the Commonwealth and the Copyright Agency Limited (CAL). DFAT endorsed this agreement on 2 July 2003. The fee paid by DFAT fulfils the Department’s obligations under the Copyright Act 1968 to provide equitable remuneration to copyright owners pursuant to section 183 of the Act. Section 183 of the Act allows the Commonwealth to make copies of copyright material if this is done for the service of the Commonwealth or a State. (b) The copyright material was used within the Department during the financial period ending 30 June 2006. and (b) The expenditure was for security-related construction work on the chancery compound in New Delhi.  (c) and (d) It is not the practice of the Government to provide details of security works. This agreement is between the Australian Translating and Interpreting Service, of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and the Australian Passport Information Service (APIS) which is operated by Centrelink on behalf of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. (a) APIS provides simultaneous interpreting on all Australian passport related matters for non-English speaking people. (b) The service is provided in over 60 languages as listed on the APIS website (http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/languages/index.htm). (c) While some DFAT employees have simultaneous interpreting skills, the department does not have the number of employees with the range of languages needed to provide this service. and (b) The expenditure was for security-related construction work on the chancery compound in Tel Aviv. (c) and (d) It is not the practice of the Government to provide details of security works. 1 1 6105 1 Plibersek, Tanya, MP 83M Sydney ALP 0 Ms Plibersek asked the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads, in writing, on 7 August 2007: In respect of the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme inquiry, (a) what changes have been instigated to reduce fraud and (b) will the Minister supply a copy of any recent evaluations that demonstrate how the system has reduced rorts. 1 Lloyd, Jim, MP IK6 Robertson LP Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads 1 Mr Lloyd —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: and (b) On 21 June 2007 the Australian Government tabled its response to the Productivity Commission inquiry into Tasmanian Freight Subsidy Arrangements. A copy of the response is attached. These reforms will be implemented from 1 July 2008. As identified in the response, the Department of Transport and Regional Services will report to the Commonwealth on the effectiveness of the reforms within three years of the implementation of the revised arrangements. Productivity Commission Recommendations and Commonwealth Government Response Productivity Commission Inquiry Report No. 39 “Tasmanian Freight Subsidy Arrangements” The Commonwealth Government (‘the Commonwealth’) recognises that Tasmanian producers can be at a freight cost disadvantage when competing in mainland markets by not having land access to the mainland states and territories. The Commonwealth therefore remains strongly committed to the programmes it has in place to alleviate the cost disadvantages faced by passengers and freight across Bass Strait. In this context, the Commonwealth agrees with the findings of the final Productivity Commission (‘the Commission’) Report and will implement its substantive recommendations. In particular the Commonwealth will ensure the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme (TFES) and the Tasmanian Wheat Freight Scheme (TWFS) (‘the Schemes’) more strongly focus on effectively addressing sea freight cost disadvantage, and will put in place further reforms ensuring that the Schemes operate effectively and to the benefit of the people of Tasmania. Key changes to be implemented as a result of this decision are: restructuring the basis for claiming TFES assistance to minimise the adverse incentives the current TFES generates. This will involve ensuring that, as far as is practicable, assistance is paid on the basis of the demonstrated sea freight cost disadvantage as a result of having to ship goods across Bass Strait; enhancing the administration and auditing of the TFES, involving updating and enhancing systems and more comprehensive public reporting of information; revising the methodology for setting and updating the parameters used to calculate TFES assistance; expanding the TWFS to include all bulk and containerised unprocessed wheat shipments, and for eligible shipments to be paid at the same rate and not be subject to the current cap on TWFS payments; and unprocessed wheat will no longer be eligible under the TFES. These reforms will be subject to a report to the Commonwealth in three years from implementation to assess their effectiveness. The Commonwealth intends to implement the changes from 1 July 2008. Prior to this date there will be extensive consultation with stakeholders to ensure the revised Schemes are implemented in a practical manner that minimises any additional burdens on claimants and other parties. The consultation process will focus on: documentation and evidentiary requirements for the revised Schemes; updating and enhancing the information technology systems used to administer the Schemes; designing an appropriate auditing, compliance and fraud prevention programme for the revised arrangements; updating the methodology for calculating the parameters used for the Schemes, and ensuring the parameters are reviewed every three years in future; and designing the new methodology for calculating assistance under the TWFS. In addition to these improvements, the Commonwealth has agreed to give further consideration to: specific circumstances facing King and Flinders islands; and assistance for packaging designed and used for multiple northbound trips. The Commonwealth will finalise the details of the revised Schemes early in 2008 following consultations with stakeholders on the matters raised above. The Commonwealth’s responses to the individual Commission recommendations are as follows: Recommendation 1 The basis for claiming TFES payments should be restructured to minimise the adverse incentives that the current Scheme generates. Recommendation 2 Assistance under the TFES should only be payable on the basis of evidence of actual wharf‑to‑wharf costs: Centrelink should specify the documentary evidence that it will accept as proof of wharf‑ to‑wharf costs. As far as practicable, this should be based on original carrier wharf‑to‑wharf invoices. Parameter adjustments of $230 per twenty foot equivalent unit (TEU) for door‑to‑wharf and wharf‑to‑door costs should no longer apply. Other parameter adjustments would continue to be used. Recommendation 4 Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS) and the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics (BTRE) should revise the methodology for setting and updating the remaining parameters, and review them every three years. In particular, they should review how wharf‑to‑wharf costs should be defined. The results of parameter reviews should be published. Commonwealth response: The Commonwealth accepts recommendation 1, recommendation 2, and recommendation 4. The TFES is based on alleviating the cost disadvantage associated with being unable to use land transport across Bass Strait, and assistance is based on the sea freight cost disadvantage. The Commonwealth agrees that restructuring the TFES by making actual wharf‑to‑wharf costs the basis for assessing TFES claims will minimise the potential for a component of land freight costs to receive assistance, contrary to the Scheme objectives. The abolition of the $230 per TEU door‑to‑wharf and wharf‑to‑door parameter adjustments is consistent with this. The move to the sole use of actual wharf‑to‑wharf costs, and the associated removal of the parameter adjustments for land‑based costs, will necessitate the introduction of new evidentiary requirements for Scheme claimants and a revision of the methodology for setting the remaining parameters. DOTARS will consult with the transport industry and other stakeholders about the documentary evidence required to support wharf‑to‑wharf claims. The intention of these consultations will be to ensure that a practical and sustainable approach to documentation is established, that will be consistent with audit and compliance requirements into the future. The Commonwealth will review the parameters every three years and results of the review will be published. The Commonwealth will specify the documentary evidence required for wharf‑to‑wharf claims and the updated parameters in revised ministerial directions for the TFES to be in place when the revised arrangements are introduced, from 1 July 2008. Recommendation 3 The administration and auditing of the TFES should focus more intensively on the verification of wharf‑to‑wharf costs: The system required to administer the Scheme should be updated in the light of the more detailed evidence and data processing needed to verify wharf‑to‑wharf costs. There should be more comprehensive public reporting of information, including the annual payments to recipients. Commonwealth response: The Commonwealth accepts recommendation 3. A new approach to verifying wharf‑to‑wharf costs will be developed and supported by an upgraded computer system and risk management approach. The consultations with industry and other stakeholders will also canvas options for best practice approaches to lodging claims and compliance measures. From 2008, the Commonwealth will publish comprehensive information about the TFES and TWFS. This will include: payments to claim recipients receiving $1,000 or more in a financial year; the break down of assistance by industry/goods; the results of the methodology and parameter review for 2008 and subsequent reviews; and annual reporting on the Schemes and their audit/compliance. Recommendation 5 DOTARS should monitor the operation of the revised Scheme to investigate whether there is evidence of ongoing gaming and overcompensation under wharf‑to‑wharf claiming arrangements. It should report to Government on this matter during 2009. The report should also examine: The effectiveness of administration and audit controls. The role of all actual and potential claimants who are not producers and shippers of goods assisted under the TFES. Any aspects of the ministerial directions judged to be causing difficulty at that time. If the Government concludes that gaming and overcompensation of freight cost disadvantage remain significant issues, it should introduce a flat‑rate of assistance per TEU as per finding 7.1 to operate from 1 July 2010. Commonwealth response: The Commonwealth accepts recommendation 5 in part, with the report to the Commonwealth to be made within three years of the implementation of the revised arrangements and with the form and content of the review to be determined by the Commonwealth in 2010. The Commonwealth will monitor the Schemes and any amendments will be considered as part of this review in 2010. Recommendation 6 The TWFS should pay the same level of assistance per tonne to wheat shipped in containers and in bulk: Payments under the TWFS should not be capped. Wheat should no longer be eligible for assistance under the TFES. The level of assistance should be based on the least cost method of shipping wheat across Bass Strait and a rail freight equivalent cost: Given the lack of recent data on these measures, the Bass Strait wharf‑to‑wharf container rate and the TFES road freight equivalent should be used in the interim. As such, for three years, the TWFS should pay assistance of $23.12 per tonne, or the shipper’s actual wharf‑to‑wharf costs, whichever is the lesser. In concert with the first three‑year parameter and operational review of the TFES, the BTRE should estimate the cost of bulk shipments of wheat and the rough rate equivalent, to update the rate of subsidy from that time. Commonwealth response: The Commonwealth accepts recommendation 6 in part. The TWFS will be expanded to include both bulk and containerised unprocessed wheat shipments, and the current cap of $1.1 million per annum will be removed. The interim rate to be applied will be determined as part of the methodology review to be undertaken by the BTRE, and implemented from 1 July 2008. This rate will be reviewed on a three yearly cycle along with the parameters for the TFES, and the results of this published. 109 109 6122 109 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads, in writing, on 7 August 2007: In respect of his commitment to allocate up to $750,000 to fund a safety upgrade of the intersection of Bells Line Road and Old Bells Line Road at Kurrajong, (a) under which AusLink program will the project be funded; (b) when and by whom was the funding application lodged; (c) what was the nature of the application approval process; and (d) what contribution is being made to the project by the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority and/or the Hawkesbury Council. 109 Lloyd, Jim, MP IK6 Robertson LP Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads 1 Mr Lloyd —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The project will be funded under AusLink’s Strategic Regional Programme. There was no application. This was a decision of the Australian Government following the recent tragic death of a child at the intersection. The NSW Government has not made any financial contribution to this project. The Hawkesbury City Council is not required to contribute to the project. 109 109 6141 109 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 0 Mr Georganas asked the Minister for Ageing, in writing, on 7 August 2007: For each profession involved in caring for aged care facility residents, what are the minimum staffing levels required of aged care facilities, and how have these staffing levels changed over the past 10 years. 109 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP Minister for Ageing 1 Mr Pyne —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Aged Care Act 1997 (the Act) does not specify staff ratios or minimum staffing levels, but rather requires that there are sufficient skilled staff to ensure that services are delivered in accordance with the Accreditation Standards. The Australian Government sets out 44 requirements for aged care facilities to meet to receive accreditation. These are not minimum standards, but the level required to operate an aged care facility ensuring appropriate quality care for residents. Ensuring appropriate staffing levels and skills would be a factor considered by aged care facilities in meeting the requirements. The appropriate ratio of staff to residents and the required skill sets of staff are affected by factors such as the nature of the care and service needs of residents, the nature of the buildings, the way work is organised and the extent to which some services are conducted in-house or are outsourced. Thus the number of staff that is appropriate for a given number of residents will vary from home to home and from time to time as changes in the mix of residents’ needs within a home occur. The Act has been in effect for the past ten years. The requirements have not changed over this period. 110 110 6217 110 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 0 Mr Danby asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 13 August 2007: Can he confirm that: (a) Ms Halah Esfandiari, Head of the Middle East Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, and Mr Kian Tajbakhsh, a consultant for the Open Society Institute, are being held in gaol in Iran on alleged spying charges; (b) the lawyer for Ms Esfandiari, Nobel Peace Prize winner Mrs Shirin Ebadi, has been denied access to her client; (c) Iran is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which outlaws forced confessions; and (d) both Ms Esfandiari and Mr Tajbakhsh were forced to make confessions on Iranian television on 18 and 19 July 2007; if so, can he say whether such arrests are part of a crackdown by the Ahmadinejad regime against workers concerned by the failures of the Iranian economy, young people who resist Islamic dress codes and strictures and trade unions fighting for employee rights. 110 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: A spokesman for the Iranian judiciary said on 29 May 2007 that Dr Haleh Esfandiari and Mr Kian Tajbakhsh were being held in Evin Prison on charges of endangering Iran’s national security and espionage. Dr Esfandiari has now been released on bail. Ms Ebadi has said that Iranian officials denied Dr Esfandiari access to legal counsel. Iran is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 14 (3) (g) of the Covenant states that a person facing a criminal charge shall not be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt. On 18 and 19 July 2007 Iranian television aired footage of Dr Esfandiari and Mr Tajbakhsh making statements about their activities in Iran. Elements of the Iranian Government described the footage as evidence of Dr Esfandiari and Mr Tajbakhsh’s involvement in a plot against the Iranian Government. The human rights situation in Iran has deteriorated markedly since Mr Ahmadinejad’s election as President in June 2005. It is clear that the arrest and detention without charge of labour activists, journalists and young people in Iran is increasing. 110 110 6227 110 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP 0 Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads, in writing, on 7 August 2007: In respect of his commitment to allocate up to $25million toward upgrading the Whitehorse Road-Springvale Road intersection in Nunawading, (a) under which AusLink program will the project be funded; (b) when and by whom was the funding application lodged; (c) what was the nature of the application approval process; and (d) where in the AusLink Corridor Strategies program is the project identified. 110 Lloyd, Jim, MP IK6 Robertson LP Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads 1 Mr Lloyd —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The project has not been approved under provisions of the AusLink (National Land Transport) Act 2005. On 31 August 2004, by the then Mayor of the City of Whitehorse, Cr. Robert Chong OAM. This was a decision of government. The intersection is not on the AusLink National Network. 1 1 6229 to 6257 1 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP 0 Mr Garrett asked all ministers, in writing, on 15 August 2007: Is the Minister aware of the dissenting report to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Science and Innovation Committee titled Between a Rock and a Hard Place: the Science of Geosequestration, which was tabled in the House of Representatives on 13 August 2007; if so, what is the Minister’s response to: each of the 26 points presented in the dissenting report and; the conclusions reached in the dissenting report. 1 Macfarlane, Ian, MP WN6 Groom LP Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources 1 Mr Ian Macfarlane —I provide the following answer, on behalf of all ministers, to the honourable member’s question: Yes - I am aware of the dissenting report and as the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, I have responsibility for developing the Australian Government response to the report. I am not in a position to respond to the dissenting report or to indicate which of the report’s recommendations the Government supports until the response has been finalised. 111 111 6258 111 O’Connor, Gavan, MP WU5 Corio ALP 0 Mr Gavan O’Connor asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing , on 15 August 2007: What is the Government’s position on Western Sahara. Why did Australia abstain during the vote at the most recent United Nations (UN) General Assembly on a resolution supportingthe efforts of the UN to achieve a solution for Western Sahara as a Non-Self-Governing Territory. Is he aware of the UN Legal Opinion of 29 January 2002, which reported that the natural resources of Western Sahara are being exploited by Morocco, in violation of the principles of international law applicable to mineral resource activities in Non-Self Governing Territories; if so can he provide assurance that Australia is not importing goods from the disputed territory of Western Sahara. Has the Government made representations to the Moroccan Government requesting (a) the end of the systematic oppression of peaceful demonstrations in the occupied areas of Western Sahara and the detention and torture of Saharawi human rights activists and university students, (b) the release of all the Saharawi political detainees and the prosecution of those responsible for torture and illegal disappearances of Saharawi human rights activists and (c) cooperation with the UN in its efforts to organise a referendum on self-determination for the Saharawi people, in accordance with UN resolutions and the verdict of the International Court of Justice; if not, why not. 111 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Australian Government supports a negotiated solution to the Western Sahara issue that is acceptable to all directly interested parties. Australia supports the efforts of the international community through the United Nations to assist in achieving this end. The Australian Government abstained from the United Nations General Assembly resolution on Western Sahara in 2006 in profound regret that the parties to the resolution were unable to reach agreement concerning the question of Western Sahara. The Australian Government would have preferred a consensus resolution as is traditional on such issues. I am aware of the opinion of Hans Corell, former United Nations Under-Secretary General of Legal Affairs, dated 29 January 2002. I note the opinion is not legally binding and does not set out measures to be taken by states to prohibit imports from Western Sahara. Nonetheless, my department has placed a notice on the DFAT website stating that there are international law considerations to take into account when engaging in commercial activities in Western Sahara. Companies are advised to seek independent legal advice. There are no United Nations Security Council sanctions or Australian bilateral sanctions prohibiting imports from Western Sahara or Morocco. and (b) The Government takes an ongoing interest in the human rights situation in Western Sahara and is aware of reports of human rights violations in this territory. The Government emphasises the need for all parties to the dispute to show commitment to the promotion and protection of internationally recognised standards of human rights. (c) The Government urges Morocco and Polisario to cooperate with the UN in efforts to resolve the issue. Parties held direct negotiations in New York under UN auspices in June and August 2007 and the next round of talks is scheduled to be held later this year. 112 112 6264 112 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 0 Mr Danby asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 15 August 2007: Can he confirm that the World Bank is (a) funding nine Iranian Government projects to a total of $1.35 billion, one of which operates in Isfahan, where Iran’s nuclear program is headquartered and (b) providing support of $950 million to the Iranian Government from 2007 to 2010. Will he give an undertaking that Australia will use its influence at the World Bank to encourage the World Bank to place financial pressure on the Ahmadinejad regime in Tehran to encourage it to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons. 112 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: According to its website, the World Bank has committed approximately US$1.35 billion to nine projects in Iran. One project, to improve environmental management, has operations in Isfahan. (b) The nine projects, approved between 2000 and 2005, are scheduled to end between 2007 and 2012. Based on World Bank statistics of 30 June 2007, approximately US$507 million has been disbursed thus far. A further US$848 million is available for the completion of these projects. Australia strongly supports pressure brought by the international community on Iran to suspend its proliferation sensitive nuclear activities, cooperate with the IAEA and resolve concerns about its nuclear program. The international community agrees that currently the most effective forum for such pressure remains the United Nations Security Council. 112 112 6276 112 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 16 August 2007: Has he read the report titled Return to War: Human Rights under Siege, which was released on 6 August 2007 by Human Rights Watch, following an investigation into Sri Lanka’s worsening human rights situation; if not, why not. What is the Government’s response to that part of the report which states that (a) “civilians have paid a heavy price, both directly in the fighting and in the dramatic increase in abductions, killings, and ‘disappearances.’ The return to war has brought serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law” and (b) “as the hostilities have increased, the government’s respect for international law has sharply declined, with it often appearing indifferent to the impact on civilians in the north and east”. Will the Government call on all parties to implement the key recommendations of the report, which are contained within the executive summary; if not, why not. 113 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I am aware of the relevant Human Rights Watch report on Sri Lanka. The Government continues to express its concerns at the deteriorating human rights situation in Sri Lanka and its impact on civilians. On 10 July this year, for example, I wrote to the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister noting my concern about the return to conflict, the associated humanitarian crisis and the increasing incidence of reported human rights violations in Sri Lanka. My department has noted the recommendations of Human Rights Watch report and will continue to have regard to them. The Government regularly calls on all parties to take action to prevent the abuse of human rights in Sri Lanka. In a media release of 23 May 2007, I expressed concern at the trend towards increasing violence and the growing environment of impunity surrounding human rights violations in Sri Lanka. I called on all parties to the conflict in Sri Lanka to resume peace talks without delay to seek a solution which addresses the legitimate aspirations of all Sri Lankans. The Government has also provided practical assistance in this regard. I announced in May 2007 that Australia would contribute $5.25 million to provide life-saving and other essential humanitarian services for those affected by the intensifying conflict in Sri Lanka. This included $1 million through the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to help protect civilians from violations of international humanitarian law and to allow the ICRC to visit detainees and act for families of missing persons, $1.25 million to UNICEF for provision of child protection services for displaced people and separated families and $2.5 million to United Nations High Commission for Refugees to provide protection and other assistance to displaced people in the north and east of Sri Lanka. These contributions brought total Australian humanitarian assistance to Sri Lanka to $17.8 million in 2006/07. 113 113 6277 113 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 16 August 2007: Is he aware of recommendations made by Human Rights Watch in Part XI of its report Return to War: Human Rights under Siege, that donor governments act to calm the worsening human rights situation in Sri Lanka; if not why not. Does the Government support calls to work with the Sri Lankan Government to establish an international human rights monitoring mission, under United Nations auspices, to monitor violations of human rights and international humanitarian law by all parties; if so, how; if not, why not. Does the Government support calls to urge all parties to designate demilitarised zones as sanctuaries in conflict areas and pre-position humanitarian relief in known places of refuge; if so, how; if not, why not. Does the Government support calls for all parties to improve humanitarian access to populations at risk, including the lifting of Sri Lankan government restrictions on humanitarian workers; if so, how; if not, why not. Will the Government support all other recommendations made by Human Rights Watch to donor governments; if so, how will it support each recommendation; if not, (a) which recommendations will it not support and (b) why not. 113 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Downer —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) already has ongoing involvement in Sri Lanka and a number of UN special rapporteurs and envoys have visited Sri Lanka and provided reports on aspects of the human rights situation. Australia is pleased that the Sri Lankan Government has invited the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbor, to visit Sri Lanka in October 2007. My department will continue to monitor the efforts of OHCHR and other UN bodies in Sri Lanka and to support their activities there, as appropriate. Australia has welcomed Sri Lanka’s Commission of Inquiry to investigate human rights violations and has nominated an eminent jurist, Professor Ivan Shearer, to the Independent International Group of Eminent Persons to assist the Commission of Inquiry. The Government continues to express its concerns about internally displaced persons in Sri Lanka. Between 2005 and 2007, Australia has provided more than $A30 million to experienced and reputable multilateral aid agencies and international non-government organisations, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Organisation for Migration and the International Committee of the Red Cross, to provide humanitarian relief to civilians affected by the conflict. The Government also continues to call on both parties to the conflict to return to negotiations, which would assist displaced people return to their homes. Yes. The Australian High Commission in Colombo continues to express Australia’s concerns about access for humanitarian workers to the highest levels of the Sri Lankan Government, including in the context of Australia’s substantial support for humanitarian assistance for conflict-affected persons through United Nations and other multilateral aid agencies. See my response to part 3 of Question No. 6276.