David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

When I saw this matter of public importance I thought: 'What is happening here? What are our wrong priorities towards nurses?' I had to scurry back to my office and look through all our documents that we had put through in the campaign and in the budget. To be truthful, I was hard pressed to find anything specifically that was not beneficial for nurses. Then today in question time we hear of visitors here from the Health Services Union and other unions. Then the penny dropped and, like most of you, I realised that this is a bit of a beat up for the people in the unions that are controlling far too many members on the other side of the House.

If you look at things rationally, maybe they are upset about the fact that, when we were in government previously, the coalition introduced practice payments for nurses. But surely they could not be upset about that. Maybe they do not like the idea of 500 scholarships for nurses for up to $30,000 to train, particularly, those in rural and remote areas. They keep going on about this mythical $50 billion worth of cuts, but when you look at it the payments to the states actually go up. What they are complaining about is that the increases are not as prodigious or unrealistic or unsustainable as the previous ALP government made out.

So, there are no cuts. To me, a cut means that what you get next year is less than what you got this year. But things are going up and up—as many speakers here today have pointed up, by nine per cent, nine per cent, six per cent, and then the usual precedent is by CPI and population growth. So, this idea of cuts is absolute rubbish, and these members on the other side should be held to account for scaring the bejesus out of half the people who depend on the health system for their wellbeing. I have worked for 33 years in the health system, and I do not know anyone in the health system who has ever complained about a cut in bureaucracy—and that is what we are doing. The last time I was in A and E and there was blood going everywhere and someone exsanguinating, I did not say, 'Quick, get me a clipboard!' or 'I need a few more paperclips!' or 'I need a new position statement!'

That is what we are doing. We are directing what precious money is in the health portfolio into front-line services. We also have a $331 million Practice Nurse Incentive Payment. Maybe they are complaining about $331 million being dedicated to getting more nurses in private practice, just like they are complaining about nine per cent more, nine per cent more, six per cent more. It is just ridiculous. It strikes me as quite confected anger. They do not have anything else to complain about, so they brew up this major storm about these mythical cuts, when in fact things are going up. There is also $80 million for clinical training programs for nurses. Who could complain about that? So, there is one policy after the other—funding that is going up—yet they are complaining.

In my area, what have we seen from the previous government? We have seen $7 million tied up in my home town for a superclinic that has been in construction for 3½ years and has not seen one patient yet. And you hear the stories all around the country of all these superclinics that are white elephants or are underutilised or not utilised. It is just ridiculous. Practice incentive payments for infrastructure are going to expand the capacity of existing practices rather than superclinics. They also make a big deal about the $7 co-payment. Sure, it is going to change the behaviour in general practices. Hello! That is why it is being introduced—because it was unsustainable. It is sending a price to both the doctor and the patient. And the system, if it is going to be sustained, needs it. (Time expired)

See this speech in context