Georganas, Steve, MP

Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (10:04): Can I say at the outset how delighted I am that we are actually debating dental care. I say that because this is a very important issue for pensioners, for children and for people on low incomes, who have been struggling with this for many, many years. It is great to hear the opposition talking about dental care, because I can recall the times that they spoke about dental care when they were in government. I recall two times. The first was in 1996, when the first act of the Howard government was to get rid of the Commonwealth Dental Scheme. They spoke about it then. The second time it was ever raised was at a minute to midnight before the 2007 election, when they cobbled together a botched up policy for the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. In the period in between, it was raised on a number of occasions. Many of us on this side campaigned on it. I did, very strongly, in my 2004 campaign and in 2007 and 2010. I constantly saw constituents of mine who had been waiting for years to get dentures, people who were on a pension, who were on low incomes, people waiting to get their teeth fixed, waiting for fillings—a whole range of things. Every single time it was raised either as a question in question time or a private member's motion or as a debate on radio or in the media, the answer always came back exactly the same, and that was: 'It has nothing to do with the Commonwealth government.' Look up Hansard. I urge people to look up the Hansards, look at the questions and look at the debates, and you will see the same answer over and over: 'It has nothing to do with the Commonwealth government. Go to your state Labor mates and get it fixed.' Those are the responses that we were getting. So I am really pleased—I am delighted—that the opposition is actually talking about dental care, because we have a plan in place that will look after low-income earners, pensioners, children and also people with chronic diseases. Dr Southcott interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms K Livermore ): Order! The member for Boothby has had his opportunity. Mr GEORGANAS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I sat here from nine o'clock in silence. I did not intervene or interject at all, and I expect the same while I am speaking. I am sure that the members opposite have a keen interest in dental care, but we have seen the package that was botched together at a minute to midnight just before the 2007 election. We were told that it would cost around $90 million each year. You might think that $90 million per year is a fairly reasonable amount. It is actually costing us $1 billion each year, and it still leaves people waiting on the list. There are still pensioners who are waiting to get dentures. There are still children who are not getting the services. Mr Laming: Half as many! The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Bowman will sit in silence. Mr GEORGANAS: There are still people waiting on the list to get their teeth fixed. There are people who cannot afford private health insurance, who perhaps do not have a chronic illness but have worked all their lives, paid their taxes all their lives and are now on a low income or a pension and are still waiting on that list. The scheme that Abbott put up in 1997 does nothing for those people. Our scheme will ensure that they get the services that are required. We raised this issue continually, over and over again, when we were in opposition and when I was a candidate, and the answers were always the same. It was always: 'No, no, no. We are not interested in dental care. It has nothing to do with us. It's a state issue.' I am very interested to see where this interest in dental care has come from all of a sudden. Mr Laming: Because you're ripping a billion dollars out! The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Bowman persists in interjecting and he is warned! The member for Hindmarsh will be heard in silence. Mr GEORGANAS: We heard the shadow minister for health say earlier that, in the last decade, we have seen state governments drive down dental care. That is because the coalition cut the Commonwealth dental scheme, and waiting lists went up to 750,000 people. People were waiting up to four years to get their teeth fixed. As I said yesterday, I am always happy to take advice from anyone, but I am not sure whether any advice from the opposition should be taken seriously, with their record. Now they come into this House and talk to us about dental care and what should be done for people who have illnesses who are on low incomes et cetera. Where was this passion about dental care when they were in government and we would raise this constantly? There was a brick wall when we would raise it, for a whole decade. We all remember that. Every single one of us on this side remembers. I urge you to look at the Hansard, at the questions I asked and the questions that the member for Richmond and the member for Shortland asked. They were passionate about dental care. In opposition, there were lots of debates and lots of talk but there was constantly a brick wall put up, with the government saying: 'It has absolutely nothing to do with us. Go to your mates in the state Labor governments. It's their responsibility. We wipe our hands of it.' In 2007, as the clock was ticking over towards the federal election, the coalition came up with a scheme that was cobbled together and was meant to cost $90 million a year. We see it now costing $1 billion a year, approximately $80 million per month, with people still on that waiting list. It is doing nothing for those people. On this side of the House, we are very proud of this bill. This is something that we have all campaigned on. It was an election promise in 2007 and 2010, and it is now coming to fruition. It is very important that those opposite support it. We were elected on this platform in 2007 and 2010. We have a mandate. It is very clear. On two occasions when we have tried to progress dental reform in this House, it has been blocked by those opposite—not once but twice. As I said, we have a clear mandate. It cannot be any clearer. We have the electoral authority to deliver this reform of the provision of dental services in this land. If you look at the Hansard from when we were in opposition, and from since we have been in government, you will see the commitments that we have made. We are delivering on those commitments. We want to deliver a dental scheme that is equitable for all in this nation. That is what this bill does. I do not believe the opposition will support this bill, because that is all we have heard from them—a constant no, no, no, on every bit of reform that we try to put into this place. By opposing this bill, they are opposing the most vulnerable in our community—pensioners, children and low-income earners who have no other way of getting their teeth fixed and maintained. We have another fear campaign from those opposite, saying that we are cutting the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme and there will be no services for the people on that scheme. We are offering a service to people with chronic diseases and to people on low incomes. People on low incomes who have no other means to pay for dental care will get the services that they require. This is an Abbott scare campaign, just as we have seen with the carbon tax and a whole range of other things. It is a scare campaign trying to convince people that we are going to deprive them of dental services—when we have campaigned continually for 10 years on the fact that we believe in a dental system that assists pensioners and people on low incomes to receive the services that they require. They are preaching now to us about dental care, but when they came in and axed the Commonwealth dental scheme people were required to wait up to two and three years. At one stage, the lists of people waiting to have their teeth fixed ballooned out to 750,000. Labor have promised, and we have been pursuing, something very different to those opposite, and that is to increase the availability of dental services. The poorly designed coalition scheme, which we have sought for years to replace, subsidised treatment of millionaires. Gina Rinehart could get access to that scheme, yet a pensioner in my electorate, in Plympton, who did not have a chronic disease but had worked all her life, paid her taxes and was now on an age pension, could not access it. You tell me where the equity and fairness is in that. Mr Baldwin: That's a lie! Mr GEORGANAS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask that the member withdraw that remark. Mr Baldwin: I withdraw. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Mr GEORGANAS: As I said, it was a scheme that was poorly designed and that led to waste and dissatisfaction. I have seen many constituents who accessed the service only to find out that the money was gone within a couple of visits, they had not got what they wanted and they had not got the services they were paying for. I have seen many, many people. In fact, a couple of dentists have come to me to tell me that this is happening quite widely. Last year, we saw Medicare recover money—I cannot remember how much, but it was in the millions—where dental treatment had not been done properly but the money had been paid. That is taxpayers' money. I have heard many stories of treatments that have been of low value and poorly performed or that have remained inaccessible to those who need them the most. That is what our scheme is about: providing the services to those that need them the most. The system needs to improve, but improvement is anathema to those opposite. They would prefer a culture of fear, to scare people, to say we are taking something away when in fact we are actually giving back bigger and better dental services. Those opposite have been crying out with false alarm this morning, saying that Labor plans to deprive people of dental services. That is not correct. As I said, the only people who have deprived the Australian public dental care are those opposite—they cut the Commonwealth dental scheme in 1996. That was their very first act, and the fear I have is that an Abbott led government would do the same thing again. They would repeat what they did in 1996; it would be history repeating. This is one example of a continual string of ironies where the coalition says positive change is negative change; where an increase in services means a decrease in availability—we are increasing services; that is the reality. The Abbott coalition strive to convince the people to fear the very changes that will benefit them most. They are trying to put the fear into people that these changes are going to benefit the Australian public, particularly low income earners, pensioners and children. I am proud to speak in favour of this bill. We have a record of campaigning for and promising that we will deliver a dental scheme, and that is what this is. As a result of this package, which was announced by the Minister for Health in late August, 3.4 million Australian children will be eligible for funded dental care through the expansion of the government's current child focused dental scheme. That means that we are putting preventative measures in place. When these children grow up to become teenagers and adults, they will have much healthier teeth and that means they will not have to access these services, costing us less in the long run. Currently, under the bill children aged 12 to 18 will be able to access dental care. Almost 3½ million children aged two and over will be able to access the care they need. That will be a good start in dental hygiene, and will set the path for fewer problems in the future, costing governments less money. That is why this is a good bill—it also covers the preventative side of things. Funding will be provided to the states for around 1.4 million additional dental services for adults on low incomes such as age pensioners, concession card holders and people with disabilities and special needs. When the Howard government cut the Commonwealth dental scheme in 1996, the waiting list went up to 750,000 people, with an average waiting time of 2.4 years. We are delivering 1.4 million services, which will wipe out the bulk of the waiting list. If those opposite were to form government at the next election—shock, horror!—one of the first things they would do is revisit what they did in 1996. We know that deep down in their hearts they do not believe in the dental scheme. We asked those questions and they were honest enough to tell us when they were in government that these services had nothing to do with a federal government. Further, outer metropolitan, rural and remote areas will receive additional capital and workforce to provide the services where they are needed. This package relies on federal funding complementing state funding. Many things have to be negotiated between the Commonwealth and the states, and I envisage, for example, New South Wales and Queensland may try to sabotage the process, as we have seen with other negotiations that have taken place, and the poor people of Queensland and New South Wales will be the worse off for that. (Time expired)