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

How often do we see hypocrisy, hype and scaremongering in this House? Who was it that actually developed and delivered the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme? It was the coalition. It was the first vehicle for providing widespread dental care to a million people. Who got rid of it? The ALP. Who tried to make Medicare more sustainable by encouraging private insurance? The coalition did. Who attacked it? Labor did. All this hypocrisy is too much to bear. Who introduced the co-payment for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme? It was Labor. Yet when we try to make something sustainable that is going to last for decades to come, they criticise it. They have no credibility at all. Just look at the money they wasted on super clinics—trophy buildings that pinch doctors from other medical centres. They have not really delivered much at all when you analyse what they are criticising.

As that famous woman who ran Britain for more than a decade said: pennies do not fall from heaven; they have to be earned here on earth. The same applies to the health budget. Governments do not create money. They are given it by taxpayers and they hold it in trust to be used wisely and efficiently. Primary industries, secondary industries, service industries and people that create wealth then pay a portion of it to the government. But we have this school of magic-pudding economics where the government pays for everything that just rears its ugly pudding head again and again.

Labor have a PhD in economics in the member for Fraser, a doctor. I think he needs to tend to the sick health economics being applied. The health budget is in terminal decline and maybe not even the good doctor could cure the health economic ills. The opposition does not seem to realise that it is not the universality that is being threatened; it is the long-term sustainability. Bulk-billing occurred 237 million times last year. Four out of every five visits to GPs were bulk-billed. That is $12.8 billion, a huge increase. There has been a 45 per cent increase in five years or 122 per cent in 10 years. Do they really think that is a sustainable course? It is simple home economics. People who have had to make their own way in life and do their own books the realise that sort of increase is not sustainable. For those that do have a healthcare card or for children, the co-payment occurs only 10 times or to a maximum of $70 in a year. Do we really think the four out of five people in Australia cannot afford $70? My electorate has more pensioners than any other electorate except for Hinkler. The reality is that most people are able to afford $7. After 10 visits or $70, it reverts back to bulk-billing.

The other mistruth that gets peddled around here is that we have already paid for our Medicare services. The Medicare payment only covers half, let alone accounts for the increase. Is the opposition going to propose putting up the Medicare levy by 122 per cent? Or are they going to put up general taxation revenue by 122 per cent to make it pay? No, they are not; they are just going to go to the magic pudding and borrow more money and take it away from general revenue, which will mean there will be no money for schools or bridges or roads.

The opposition want to have it all but they do not want to pay for it. We just need a giant reality check by the opposition to make them realise that what we are doing is what a sensible economic manager would do, which is what they did with the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and introduce a co-payment. It sends a message both to the orderers of the tests as well as to the consumers—so it is not just for patients. There is a whole cohort of my colleagues that have not had to be responsible for the costs they incur for their patients. (Time expired)

See this speech in context