Mr MELHAM (11:01 AM) —Today in the appropriation bills debate I wish to address a matter which has been raised with me by a number of people in my electorate. Perhaps the best way to illustrate it is to describe the experience of one constituent, Cath Green. Cath had her breast cancer detected at an initial free screening by BreastScreen at Kogarah. During the period of her treatment, she was referred to a private radiologist. At the time, Cath did not question this as she assumed there was a specific medical reason to do with the treatment. On making the appointment with the radiologist, she was informed that the mammogram and ultrasound would cost $314. Fortunately, Cath was in a position to meet the cost and later received a Medicare rebate of $164.60. The difference was $149.40, a considerable amount for many women already suffering from breast cancer and facing significant bills.

There are two levels of screening available to women: initial screening, conducted free through BreastScreen; and diagnostic screening, generally conducted by a private radiologist via a doctor’s referral. Diagnostic mammograms are performed on women like Cath who have breast symptoms that need to be investigated, who have a history of breast cancer in the family or who are currently undergoing treatment. The diagnostic mammogram is performed via a doctor’s referral. I fail to understand why women who have suffered through breast cancer, usually at significant personal and financial cost, should not be able to claim a full Medicare rebate on a diagnostic mammogram and ultrasound. This is one area where this budget fails. It is a budget for the greedy at the expense of the needy. This is one example I am drawing to the attention of the parliament in this debate on the appropriation bills which I see as a lost opportunity by this government, which is interested not in decent policy but quick fix solutions.

The cost of a private radiologist is significant for many women, especially when the Medicare rebate they receive is slightly less than half the cost. This situation may lead to women choosing not to have a diagnostic mammogram, given that they have to find $300 or so and only receive a portion of that back as a Medicare rebate. At the last election, Labor proposed specialist outpatient clinics attached to public hospitals to help people get timely access to specialist care without expensive out-of-pocket costs. We proposed working in partnership with the states and territories to allocate additional funds to specialties and the hospitals where they are most needed to ensure that these services supplement those already provided. We propose reaching a national agreement on the circumstances under which services in outpatient clinics could be billed to Medicare. This kind of initiative would allow women requiring diagnostic imaging to receive the service under Medicare. This initiative should have been announced in this budget. At the very least, the government should ensure that the gap between the actual cost and the schedule fee does not continue to widen. The so-called solution of the safety net only serves to widen that gap.

There is overwhelming clinical and statistical evidence that women who have had breast cancer are at greater risk of the cancer recurring. The BreastScreen New South Wales web site states:

Why are these women being denied the appropriate level of Medicare funding to potentially save their lives? Information on the BreastScreen web sites indicates that women 70 years and over are low priority. This means they cease to receive reminders from BreastScreen New South Wales that they are due for a mammogram. I find it extremely disappointing that this is the case. The cost of a postage stamp could save women’s lives—and I will come back later in this speech to deal with the priorities of this government. So you cannot get the cost of a postage stamp to help save the lives of women over 70, to give them a reminder, but we can get an increase in our communications allowance, which I will come to.

This matter was originally brought to my attention by my constituents Cath Green and the Mayor of Hurstville, Joanne Morris. Mayor Morris has since established a group of concerned people in the Hurstville City Council area. The mayor has also made representations to Minister Abbott, and the minister’s response was extremely disappointing. He said, ‘Your views have been noted and your correspondence has been forwarded to the department.’  We are left to wonder exactly what this may mean in actually doing anything. In her correspondence to me the mayor stated:

A local petition has been organised and I have already tabled a number of these on behalf of my constituents, and I will continue to act on their behalf to take the matter up to the government. I do not deny the strains on the public purse, and the fact that not everything we want can be funded, but surely here is a case of government savings gone mad. As an additional cost on top of surgery, medicines, a prosthesis and a wig, going through the private system may well not be an option for some people. Even the partial cost of the mammogram can be a burden. If some women simply do not get around to it, then what is the cost to the health system?

This state of affairs is unacceptable. In the recent budget this government proposed funding of a million dollars over four years to support the development of Breast Cancer Network Australia, which aims to assist—and I quote from the budget papers—‘the further development and dissemination of resources to help women newly diagnosed with breast cancer’. This assists those women whose cancer has not been diagnosed early and is laudatory, but surely not enough, and surely a greater focus on the early detection makes more sense economically if from no other perspective.

Let me suggest some ways in which this government could find real money to ensure that women have access to the diagnostic tools they require for the early detection of breast cancer. As I said earlier, the policy at the moment is that the cost of a postage stamp cannot be found to send reminders to women over 70 that they should come back in for a check-up—they are not in the specifically targeted group—but we have just had an announcement by the Special Minister of State, Senator Abetz, of an increase in our postage allowance. The current possible maximum for members of the House of Representatives is $4,171,200 per annum, if all members use their entitlements. That is running in effect for most members at that rate of $27,500 per year per electorate, with a slightly bigger increase to $30,800 for those in larger electorates. But we have now changed the formula so that we now get 50c per elector.

That will mean that from 1 July 2005 the new maximum possible expenditure will be $6,606,413 per year. Therefore, if you do the mathematics, there is potential greater expenditure of $2,435,213 per annum—it is just red-hot—and over a three-year period in the parliament nearly $20 million for our postage. Is this postage cut off when an election is called? The proposal from this minister and the government is that they are going to cut off the rolls when an election is called, which will disenfranchise 80,000 voters. If they are going to allow the postage allowance to continue until the day before an election for members seeking re-election in the House of Representatives, that will be an absolute rort where basically they would be milking the public purse to help the re-election of government members, who have an overwhelming advantage in incumbency. Meanwhile, you cannot find the money for postage stamps to assist women over the age of 70 to go for a further check-up after the period has elapsed. And you can roll over for one year up to the maximum of your entitlement. I say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that that money should not be able to be used when an election is called for the re-election of members of parliament. It is a rort which has been brought in by this government. It is milking the taxpayer. That is one area where you can find savings that could then go to save lives, not the jobs of members of parliament. It should be my job as a member seeking re-election to find my own money. In relation to dirty money, the government wants to raise the threshold of disclosure so that you do not have transparency in relation to donors. That is one area where millions of dollars could be saved.

At the moment this is $2.4 million extra per year that could go to good policy, not to the policy of re-election of government members. The advantage is about incumbency because in Queensland, for instance, basically it will give the government a huge advantage. Government members will have an advantage of spending an additional amount of something like $947,354 per year compared to members of the opposition, $274,914. They will have their political advantage in Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia. Meanwhile, potentially women will die because the government cannot afford the cost of postage to give them a reminder of their mammogram test.

The other rort where money could be saved is the printing allowance, which is now $125,000 per member per year. The government wanted to raise it to $150,000, but we knocked that off in the Senate. They could find all this extra money for a printing allowance, but we do not need $125,000 per year for a printing allowance to communicate with our electors. That is another area where I suggest we, as members of parliament, could take a hit to save lives. Allocate the money to good public policy, not to the re-election of members to this place. Again, if you do the figures, you will see that there is a significant advantage to government over opposition in any financial year when total printing expenditure by all members could come to $18,875,000, with an advantage to the government of $3,375,000. That is their priority—lurks and perks for their members while members of the public are not able to get proper communication when it comes to procedures that can save their lives. That is another rort where the government could find savings for good public policy.

Then we have the Governor-General and the cost of renovations to Government House and Admiralty House. Budget Paper No. 2, at page 281, states that the government will provide $7.7 million over four years, including $3.4 million in expense funding, to support the implementation of the 10-year heritage property master plan for the repair, maintenance and development of the vice regal properties at Yarralumla and Kirribilli. There is a commitment to additional funding of $7.3 million, including $3.3 million in expense funding, beyond the forward estimates to 2014-15. So we are talking about $15 million.

But that does not satisfy the Governor-General. The dogs are barking. The Governor-General wants more. He wants to renovate, in effect, the entrance area to Government House. This issue has become such an embarrassment to this government that it was not disclosed during questioning at Senate estimates hearings, despite the fact that it has gone down that pathway. It is too red-hot even for this government and so they are looking for ways to hide it. There is no transparency or accountability in that regard. There was extensive questioning in Senate estimates hearings, but the cost of refurbishing the entrance of Government House did not come up. That additional funding should not be made available.

The other area that is an absolute rort—I do not speak on behalf of my party in this regard but for myself—is the Life Gold Pass. I believe that the time for the Life Gold Pass is over. It is a rort that is not available to other workplaces. I do not mind it being made available to ex-Prime Ministers who are called upon to go and make speeches and do a whole series of other things. What this is costing the taxpayer every six months is red-hot. I do not have a problem with members of parliament getting a decent pension. My problem is the extension of the Life Gold Pass to those members of parliament who serve the required period. From 1 January to 30 June 2003 it cost $432,071.08. I am not going into matters in relation to the Prime Minister. I have a real problem with the extension of the Life Gold Pass to the widows of Life Gold Pass holders who were not ex-Prime Ministers. My views on this practice are not my party’s policy, but this practice is bringing the parliament and parliamentarians into disrepute. From July to December 2003 it cost $383,529.39 and from January to June 2004, $341,304.48. With the greatest of respect, it is an entitlement that has had its use-by date.

I know I am not going to make myself popular with members of the government, or some of the members of my own party, but I am not here trying to run a populist campaign. It is a matter of principle. I cannot see why public policy grounds require that we fund ex-members of this place to fly around this country first class, at taxpayers’ expense, for many years beyond their leaving this parliament. I can understand funding them to come to official functions and for limited travel for a certain period, when ministers have to clean up and do certain things. I am not going to go to ex-members of this place and say that ex-members of the government are worse than ex-members of the opposition. They are all the same. They are using legitimate entitlements. On public policy grounds, this entitlement should be sacrificed. It will yield more than half a million dollars on an annual basis for ex-members of parliament that could go to good public policy.

The public purse is not unlimited; there are limited funds around. Since the budget we have been having the debate about tax cuts. I agree with our policy. Why should I get a $65 tax cut when someone more needy only gets $6? We have put up an alternative tax schedule and it is significant that in all the time since the budget was delivered this government has not punched a hole in that schedule. It is deliverable. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will remember that the former Labor government, in its 13 years of office, delivered six tax cuts that saw the top tax rate go from 60c to 47c in the dollar and from 32c to 20c in the dollar at the lower end, so substantial savings were delivered to taxpayers at the higher end of the salary range. But there comes a time in good public policy terms when you have got to share it, and I am saying that  we as existing and former members of parliament should take a hit in significant areas of the public purse when it comes to finding the money to go to the services and good public policy that is going to save lives. The reason I put the savings up, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that, as you know, if you want to fund a program you must find the savings plus the efficiency dividend. (Time expired)