Ms WORTH (8:41 PM) —The health portfolio is large, with a large amount of money spent on it. Naturally, I must respond to the member for Prospect (Mrs Crosio) who has made some pretty outrageous claims.

I remind those present and the parliament that the federal government has allocated $4.7 billion for child care over four years. I also inform the member for Prospect that she, Labor candidates and some of their union mates around Australia have not given the child-care industry as a whole, be it the community sector or the private sector, any help, because women think it is costing a whole lot more than it is and are not even applying for positions.

To assist the 28 child-care centres in my electorate, I am putting together a guide and those centres will be providing information for it. They think they have been harmed by this lopsided debate that has taken place. I would like to take this opportunity to place on the record my gratitude to the Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith), who has kept functioning and alive the 24-hour centre in my electorate, in the city, and the parents there are very grateful for that assistance.

Parents should hear about funding for the following community based centres: the Brompton Child-care Centre, $11,795; the Catholic Women's League child-care centre in the city, $7,160; the Lady Gowrie child-care centre at Thebarton—a fabulous place—$13,358; and the MacKinnon Parade child-care centre in North Adelaide, which, incidentally, has amalgamated recently with the Tynte Street one, which was just around the corner. These are just the sort of reforms that were necessary. What was the point—for those who are unfamiliar with that territory—as Tynte Street and MacKinnon Parade were a stone's throw away from each other. The Prospect Community Child-care Centre is getting $11,010. Rachel Child-care Centre at Unley is getting $14,769. That is all to assist as an additional boost. The minister recognises that some of these community based child-care centres are certainly in need of extra care and attention.

Those who work within the industry have told me personally that just scattering funding across that community based child-care sector was not always appropriate. Some were getting funding that should not have. Other very needy ones such as those I have mentioned were not receiving funding. I am very pleased to see that they are.

I would also like to briefly respond to the remarks made by the member for Dobell (Mr Lee). He was not game to touch on too many issues at all. My colleague the member for Bradfield (Dr Nelson) dealt with private health insurance rather well. I remind those present that, under Labor, private health insurance participation fell by over 30 per cent, down from 65 per cent. It was because they had a Prime Minister and a health minister at the time who told everybody that private health insurance was not necessary. Now we have them bleating about those figures.

The government would like to see those figures very much higher. We recognise that the private sector is very, very important, otherwise there is pressure on the public sector. The Medicare agreements are the subject of another bill currently before the House. But again I remind those present that there is increased funding of 15 per cent, and I hope that those who are able to negotiate on these things just get right on and do it. An extra $2.9 billion has been provided, despite the fact that the member for Dobell has been known to say that there has not been one dollar extra. So I am not sure how much attention he pays to those sums.

I return to the dental health scheme. It was the previous health minister, Dr Lawrence, who set a target of 1.5 million patients to be treated. She said that this was additional funding for a state responsibility. The health minister before Dr Lawrence, Senator Richardson, referred to a four-year program. So it is just another case of bringing up some more red herrings.

I am extremely proud of what the present government is doing for all the public health areas which are so important. There is the amount of $6.1 million going towards an anti-smoking initiative, for instance. Funding is being restored to what it well and truly should be for medical research. That works out to be about an extra $50 million a year taking it up to the $165 million per year. There is the very good public health initiative for those receiving vaccination for the flu to help avoid pneumonia admissions to public hospitals. There will be $20 million spent on that. I could go on and on and on. (Time expired)