Neumann, Shayne, MP

Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (11:04): I oppose the disallowance motion. In our scheme, 5.2 million will be covered; on the CDDS, 650,000 are covered. That is the reality. I would have more respect for those opposite if they had a strong, good, caring history when it comes to dental care in this country. But what they have done is consistently and continually opposed dental reform in this country. The Keating government brought in, in 1994, assistance at a federal government level for low-income earners, people on pensions and the like—$100 million of federal government funding to assist them on the waiting lists. We brought it in. That was hailed as a great initiative, with the Commonwealth government taking up what the federal Labor government did with Medibank and then Medicare. The federal government was taking responsibility, in part if not wholly, for oral health in this country. What the Howard coalition government did in 1996 was come in, rip that $100 million or more out of the system and then leave about 750,000 people on waiting lists. They said, 'It's all the states' fault; it's not our fault.' That is what they said from 1996 until 2007—'It's not our fault; it's their fault.' Now they say it is not the states' fault. When their mates in New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria are in power, it is our fault. Where is the consistency? When we have Campbell Newman in Queensland sacking dentists, closing down breast screening, taking pathology services and dental services out of the Royal Children's Hospital and sacking people everywhere—over 4,000 front-line services in health and hospitals across the whole of Queensland, including hundreds of workers in my area, across the western corridor between Brisbane and Ipswich and beyond—what do they say about that? Where was the member for Dickson, who came in here with such feigned outrage, when it came to protecting the oral health of people across the country? Where was he? He did not say a word about that—not a word. Their scheme, which they brought in on the eve of the 20007 election, which was going to cost the taxpayers of this country $90 million, by June 2008 had cost them—according to Lindsay Tanner, the then finance minister—$248 million. Having consistently, in this chamber and elsewhere, opposed reform to bring in a system that would help low-income earners and children in this country, those opposite wasted hundreds of millions of dollars—if not billions—in dental health reform in this country. And they have the temerity and the gall to say that we waste money. They wasted it by their opposition. It was money for those needy millionaires, who need the $4,250! They are always opposing reform. We heard the outrage from those opposite when it came to the private health insurance rebate. We are seeing similar arguments today in relation to this. And guess what? I had a bit of a look at the figures on the private health insurance rebate. A record 132,366 people took out private health insurance in the June quarter—a 0.4 per cent increase on March and the largest quarterly increase since 2007. But that was all going to collapse—no-one would ever take out private health insurance; they would all go to the public system. I wonder where those opposite were in May this year; maybe there were holograms opposite. But they were there when the Treasurer talked about the $515 million in funding—and we saw the minister for health talk about this in subsequent legislation—that we are providing to make an impact on the waiting lists and other health reform in terms of people's oral health around the country. There is no gap; that is a nonsense. They must not have been here and heard those speeches. They must not have voted on those appropriation bills. I do not know what happened. Maybe it is all an illusion—they are in some sort of twilight zone. I do not know what happened with them. This is what we are doing, and this is what we did in the budget, and this is what is being rolled out across the country. We are currently seeing 400,000 people on waiting lists getting access to public dental care in public hospitals across the country. There is new spending to boost the dental workforce and improve facilities in regional and rural areas. I wonder if those people opposite actually get around to their electorates and have a look at what is happening? Of course, those opposite—who were not here, ostensibly, for the budget and the bills that related to them—did not make all those appropriation speeches up in the Federation Chamber or down here. Those opposite, not here physically, are now mute when the governments of their persuasion—and now the states—start taking the axe to health services in New South Wales or in Queensland. What we are doing here will make a big difference across electorates. In my electorate there are nearly 25,000 children who will benefit from the reforms we are bringing in. There are 12,600 families who will benefit. The shadow minister talked about 'crazy arrangements'. In relation to those opposite, the crazy arrangement is the fact that they would support the non-means-testing of this dental assistance, which would waste billions of dollars—and they claim they are the champions of financial rectitude and prudence! What is their attitude going to be when the Dental Benefits Amendment Bill comes before this chamber? Are they going to vote for it? If you listen to the speeches from those opposite last night—and today as well, I guarantee—you will not be sure. I will be very interested in how they will cast their vote. Will they cast their vote for the 3.4 million children who will be eligible for funded dental care? Will they cast their vote for additional services for the 1.4 million adults on low incomes, including pensioners and concession card holders? Or will they vote for those needy millionaires? Is that their attitude? Always, we have to do the heavy lifting when it comes to means testing. Always, those opposite support subsidies for the rich, the powerful and their vested-interest friends. Always, we have to do the hard yakka on this stuff. But if they come in, I guarantee you that they will never bring back the private health insurance rebate. And I would be very interested to see, if an Abbott-led government ever came on to this side of the chamber, whether they would bring back a Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. I tell you: they will not do it, because it is not good public policy, and they know it very well. They know it is not working for the hundreds of thousands of people on the waiting list. With the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme, not one person has actually been in a position where they can say, 'I'm off the waiting list.' Where are the examples on that today? Where were the examples last night? Where are the examples of people who got off the waiting list and used this scheme? They have not compromised for five years. They said they would compromise. We saw the shadow minister saying, 'Come to us!' There was this sort of conversion experience, and now they want to compromise. For five years we have seen nothing but truculence and obstinacy in this area. For five years we have seen financial profligacy from those opposite. For five years we have seen crazy arrangements in their mind and in their policy development on this issue, and all because they want to look after their precious Leader of the Opposition, because this was his baby. This was the little scheme he came up with in they dying days of the Howard government. This is the man who ripped a billion dollars out of the health system and came up with this scheme. This is the scheme they want to protect. Mr Robert: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: Under section 90, it is inappropriate for the member to impute any motive upon any member of the House, let alone a Leader of the Opposition, and I ask that you ask him to withdraw that imputed motive. Mr NEUMANN: There was no imputation in there. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs D'Ath ): The member for Blair has the call. Mr NEUMANN: How many times have we seen those opposite defend this and talk about it in the context of the fact that it was the Leader of the Opposition's scheme when he was the health minister. By their own words I this chamber they are actually admitting what I said. This scheme will have a big impact. Apart from the fact that we are introducing a scheme that will help 3.4 million Australian children, and provide 1.4 million additional services, we will see another $225 million allocated for dental services—in capital and workforce—not just in the capital cities of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane but out in regional, rural and remote area. In my area, the West Moreton-Oxley Medicare Local area, about 20 per cent of the population is under 14 years of age. As I said last night, Vicki Poxon, the CEO of the West Moreton-Oxley Medicare Local, supported what we say, supported this reform. She described it as being of 'the utmost importance to us', as 'ensuring our rural areas are given much-needed assistance in the more isolated locations, so we welcome this announcement as a step forward for those residents. But it is not just Vicki Poxon who have backed what we are doing. Carol Bennett, of the Consumer Health Forum of Australia, in a press release dated 19 August, said: Cost is the big barrier preventing a large section of the community from accessing preventative dental services, which in turn contributes to development of chronic conditions that place major demands on our health resources … The statement went on to quote Ms Bennett further: "By driving change through prevention in younger generations, there is increased likelihood that a whole generation will not need emergency treatment or hospital admission for chronic and preventable disease. “By addressing the dental needs of seniors and pensioners before they develop other chronic conditions, it frees health resources for other areas of high need. “This is a big win for the whole community. If you improve the health of those who can’t afford a decent standard of dental care, you raise the general health of the entire community. She is absolutely right. And we saw Dr Cassandra Goldie, from ACOSS, in a press release on 29 August, saying similar things, welcoming 'the commitment to meet the oral health needs of adults experiencing poverty and inequality who have gone without dental care for too long'. She further makes the point: By ensuring affordable appropriate and timely dental care for people on the aged or disability pension and all those with a health care card, this reform establishes the policies and funding mechanisms to reduce a major area of health inequality in Australia … People like Dr Goldie and Carol Bennett would certainly know, from their work in these areas. I think this package strikes a very important balance between improved health services for those on low incomes and it will make a big impact in terms of prevention. We have seen the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare give some pretty damning assessments of where we are in terms of the oral health needs of children. I did make this point when I spoke on the bill last night. The oral health of children has declined since the 1990s. Almost 20,000 kids under the age of 10 are hospitalised each year due to avoidable dental issues and, by age 15, six out of 10 kids have tooth decay. Over 45 per cent of 12-year-olds have decay in their permanent teeth. In 2007, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's child dental health survey discovered that just under half of children aged six years attending school dental services had a history of decay in their baby teeth. So there is much need for reform in this area, and we are seeing funding rolled out accordingly. I made the point that the waiting-list budget money that we are getting across will make a big difference in terms of the waiting list in Queensland. We will see $67.3 million received by Queensland for public dental clinics from the budget and additional funding for public clinics for low-income adults of the sum of $249.4 million in Queensland under this new package. These are important reforms. We should pursue them. The disallowance motion should be opposed and the feigned outrage from those opposite should be shown for what it is: simply another scare campaign from those who can say nothing positive about public policy in this country.