Page 1888 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 2 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
sometimes difficult to make those comparisons. I do take his point, though, that when it is an emergency, people are seen very quickly. I do take that point, but it is quite difficult to compare some of those things.
To respond to Mr Hanson, I would have hoped we had a motion that everyone could agree on, but obviously that is impossible for him to do and there does have to be political sniping and point-scoring, as per usual. I remind him again of some of the points that I made in my speech.
I note again that having a universal dental scheme was a key recommendation from the National Advisory Council on Dental Health. It was supported by all its members and was for, as I said, a universal dental care scheme. It was also the key recommendation from the Health and Hospitals Reform Commission.
This is actually about lobbying over time. This is something the Greens have been lobbying for over a number of years federally, and this is actually reminding the commonwealth government that the states and territories need this funding. It is not just about lobbying in this budget. If it is not in this budget then this motion is even more important because it is stating that we need this funding for a national dental scheme to appear in future budgets.
I think Mr Hanson said it was an embarrassment for me. Again, what is even more of an embarrassment than the embarrassment he is referring to today is how little he seems to understand his portfolio. He is talking about the costs and how the Greens are economically irresponsible. I have referred twice in my speech, but he obviously did not take it in, to the impact that not having a universal scheme is having on the federal budget every year. Again, I point to the contribution that the federal health budget makes of $426 million a year towards dental care for higher income earners through the private health insurance rebate, $350 million a year on Medicare due to untreated dental disease and at least a $100 million a year impact on the hospital system.
The fact that he cannot understand that those costs are borne elsewhere in the health system, probably elsewhere in other budgets as well, shows how little he understands his portfolio and how little he understands the concept of preventative health. This is something we keep talking about. Health is not just about waiting lists. It is actually about prevention. If you do not start investing in these areas, these are the figures you are going to see every year and you are going to see them increase every year because by not treating dental disease that is what is happening.
Dr Bourke referred to, and I did, the effect it has on nutrition and causing chronic disease for people. Those are the things that are not going to appear straightaway. They are going to appear a few years later. They are the things that do not get factored in, the things which I think show who are the economically irresponsible ones. That is the opposition, and that is why they are the opposition.
He said he wanted to give us some timely reminders. It is a timely reminder that the Howard government removed funding for dental care. That is a nice reminder for him. I also have to point to this word “aspirational” which he has put in his amendment. It is a lovely way out of actually doing anything or actually pointing out any real action.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video