Baldwin, Bob, MP

Mr BALDWIN (Paterson) (10:19): I support the motion by the shadow minister of health, the member for Dickson, that the Health Insurance (Dental services) Amendment Determination 2012 (No. 1), dated 3 September 2012, made under subsection 3C(1) of the Health Insurance Act 1973, be disallowed. I support the shadow minister because I support those in my community. Yesterday in this House I highlighted but three of the cases brought to me by my constituents. What I find most appalling in this argument by the Minister for Health is that she claims that the services are there to be driven for and supported by the millionaires in our community. I have to tell the minister that there are not too many millionaires living in my electorate. My electorate is made up largely of aged people, with 21 per cent of my population being over 65. I have a very high demographic of low-income earners throughout my electorate. That is reflected in the government's own figures, which show that 80 per cent of the people who have accessed the Medicare Chronic Disease Dental Scheme are concession card holders. In discussions this morning with one of my GPs—people who obviously you do not trust to make informed decisions about chronic disease—he said to me that the cost of providing this service, as against doing nothing and the hospitalisation of those people because of their chronic condition, is a cheap fix. In fact, while there is $4,250 allowed over two years to address the dental condition of those suffering from these chronic diseases, the average cost claim is less than $1,800 over the two years. In fact, the around one million people that have been treated have had 20 million services. Today, Minister, in an article reporting your response to my story in the Maitland Mercury yesterday, you said— The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms K Livermore ): I ask the member for Paterson not to refer to 'you'. Mr BALDWIN: I am sorry; in the article the minister said: The MCDDS has been massively rorted with more than 1000 complaints from patients ripped off with dentures that didn't fit; work charged for that was never done and cosmetic and unnecessary dental work. Minister, I put it to you this way. One thousand out of one million patients is 0.1 per cent. If you applied your argument to those receiving social security benefits who have rorted the system, you would be arguing to abolish social security because the fraud rate on that is far higher. I say to the minister, this is—to quote the old analogy— a very mean, tricky approach to dental care. This scheme takes care of those most urgently in need of dental repair work. It takes care of those predominantly who can least afford it. Your solution, Minister, is to put people on the queue, with 650,000 already waiting, who will take five years to process. These people will go to the back end of that queue and suffer all the time. I would like to point out comments from Mark Foster, Chief Executive, Hunter Urban Medicare Local, who is also a very well-respected GP. In responding to the arguments put forward on the abolition of this scheme, he said that chronic dental conditions: … can affect nutrition, which is particularly important for patients with chronic disease; chronic infections have a deleterious effect on general well-being and can … have a significant impact on patients already unwell due to a chronic disease; dental infections can spread throughout the bloodstream infecting … which can have a significant impact on patients already unwell due to a chronic disease; and surgery to have a prosthesis inserted will normally be delayed until a dental infection is resolved to avoid these complications. There can be significant delays in accessing this care through public clinics. Patients may suffer from severe joint pain and incapacity or face the risks associated with delays in cardiovascular surgery. The reason I oppose this government and want to maintain this scheme is that I am standing up for my constituents in Paterson. I am standing up for those who cannot afford to get dental care. I am standing up for people like Josh, about whom you said: I read the story in the Mercury about Josh Oran, and concerned for him, as I would be for anyone suffering or recovering from cancer. How can your concern be for someone who has had bone cancer in the jaw and whose dental work, if not completed by 30 November, will have to go on the back end of the public waiting list to get it addressed? What about his nutrition? What about his quality of life? You come in here, Minister, as a great champion of social causes, yet you are prepared to put those who require urgent treatment to have quality of life on the backburner. I say to the member of the Lyne, the member for New England, the member for Denison and the member for Kennedy, when you vote on this motion, you need to consider your constituents' needs. As it was pointed out, 80 per cent of the people who have accessed this scheme are on concession cards. I know because the member for Lyne represents the seat to the north of me and the member for New England represents a seat relative to the north-west of me. I have been to Kennedy a number of times and I have also been down to Hobart. I do not see the streets there lined with many millionaires, with people so able to afford urgent dental treatment. I say to you, if you vote to remove this scheme, I want to see you go back to your electorates tomorrow morning, to get into the media and say, 'I proudly voted down this scheme. I want to put all of those suffering from a chronic condition on the back end of the 650,000 waiting list. I want to deny you this treatment all because this minister's justification is 0.1 per cent of all treatments, which led to a complaint.' In saying that, this minister is saying in essence that she does not trust the GPs to make the informed decision of a referral for private dental treatment covered by this Medicare scheme. I disagree quite often with GPs on a range of issues but I would have thought that, when it comes to the health and wellbeing of our community, they understand more about the medical system and the treatment of their patients than any politician or any bureaucrat because they treat them on a daily basis. They take care of their patients 'general health and wellbeing and Minister Plibersek wants to deny them access. Minister, I am going to go into my community and make sure they understand that you personally want to deny them access to urgent dental work. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms K Livermore ): The member has to stop referring to 'you'. He should address his remarks through the chair. Mr BALDWIN: The minister constantly refers to care and concern for those disadvantaged in our community but the minister, in pushing this motion to abolish this scheme— Dr Southcott: With the stroke of a pen. Mr BALDWIN: with the stroke of a pen, says, 'You can get on the back of the queue.' The member for Hindmarsh talked about an equitable approach. There is urgent and high-priority work which should go to those who need it most. Imagine someone who has had a coronary occlusion being caught on the back end of a waiting list at a hospital. There is urgent work that needs to be addressed immediately and it is the same with chronic dental conditions. If that work is not done because, as the minister has made out in some of the media statements, people are seeking cosmetic work—for someone with cancer in the jaw bone who has no way of eating unless their dental condition is controlled— Ms Plibersek: They will be seen as a priority patient. Mr BALDWIN: Oh rubbish! They will be seen as a priority patient and be put on the back end of the 650,000, and you know it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Paterson will not respond to interjections. Mr BALDWIN: Well tell her to stop interjecting, Deputy Speaker. That is your role in this House. Mr Garrett: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On a number of occasions, you have cautioned the member for Paterson for his use of the term 'you', which he knows is unparliamentary and contradictory to the standing orders. I ask you to bring him to order or he should sit down. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the minister and remind the member for Paterson once again that he has to refrain from using the word 'you'. Ms Plibersek: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Paterson was just extremely disrespectful to you in telling you your job and I think he should apologise to you for that. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I appreciate the minister's concerned but we will return to the debate. The member for Paterson will be heard in silence for the remainder of his time. Mr BALDWIN: The Minister for Health does not want to hear or understand the concerns of constituents. I look forward to tomorrow when the member for Newcastle, the member for Hunter, the member for Shortland and the member for Charlton will all go to the media in the Hunter and say, 'I proudly supported taking away access to the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. I was proud to stand up and vote to make sure it was got rid of.' Through the whole spectrum of the Hunter we have a high number of people on concession cards, people who normally do not have access to public dental hospitals. People in rural and regional areas who do not have access to public dental hospitals were able to be referred by their GP to their local dentist to get work done. This minister is now saying, 'Go on the back end of the queue. Drive yourself from Forster to the dental hospital in Sydney and sit there and wait.' Minister, this is totally unacceptable and cannot be supported. The other thing the Labor Party keeps pushing is that the Howard government abolished the Commonwealth Dental Scheme. Well, that scheme was set up for four years, and it was the previous Labor government that made no allowance for it in the forward estimates. What we get from this government is rhetoric and very little action. What concerns me most about their proposal, as I said in my speech yesterday, is that this package is unfunded. I want people to clearly understand that they are abolishing this scheme to put the money in the bank to offset the $120 billion black hole. Those who are suffering from a chronic dental condition are now personally going to pay with their health for the financial mismanagement of this government because they are ripping this scheme down. I have just been informed that the member for Kennedy will not be supporting the government on this, and for that I commend him. Obviously the member for Kennedy has been out and about among his community and understands the importance of this. He and I, like the majority of members in this place, represent rural and regional electorates and we do not have a public dental health hospital in our community. That means long distances to travel and those in regional areas incurring further cost to get down to the public dental hospitals in the capital cities. This is poorly designed. All the minister is trying to do is rip money out of the system to prop up a failed financial package—and it is the people of Australia and, in particular, my constituents in Paterson who are going to suffer. Minister, you failed in your response in an article today in the Maitland Mercury. It was an appalling response. On one hand you said you care for people who suffer from these conditions and then you accused them of being millionaires who do not deserve the treatment. I say that is wrong. I seek leave to table two documents. The first is page 1 of yesterday's Maitland Mercury, which contains an article that highlights the concerns of my constituents in relation to the abolition of the Medicare Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. The second is page 4 of today's Maitland Mercury, which contains the minister's responses to that article. Leave not granted.