Mr ABBOTT (Minister for Health and Ageing) (3:57 PM) —I listened to the member for Gellibrand’s speech with some anticipation that perhaps, just for once, rather than a litany of complaints there might be some positive suggestions as to how difficult situations can be made better and I have to say that, yet again, that anticipation was dashed. I say to the member for Gellibrand that anyone can read a speech, particularly one written by someone else, but demonstrating any grasp of the difficulties and complexities of the health portfolio is much harder. I do not believe anyone who listened to that empty speech, nor indeed anyone who has listened to the windy performances of the member for Gellibrand since she assumed her current responsibilities, would regard her as having any grasp—

Ms Roxon —Tell us what you’re doing!

Mr ABBOTT —I am running the health portfolio, madam. That is what I am doing. I am taking responsibility for things. I am delivering services. I am not just an empty, air-headed commentator engaging in a litany of complaints without knowing what I am talking about. I would like to take the member for Gellibrand seriously, but on the evidence of today’s speech there is nothing to justify that. The mere fact that members opposite chose to put the member for Gellibrand up today, of all days, the least watched day of the whole parliamentary year, shows how little they take her seriously and what little faith they have in her. The member for Gellibrand is like someone who, for the first time in her life, has landed at Heathrow airport and thinks, ‘I have discovered England,’ as though no-one has ever been there before.I have thought about these things myself. She says, ‘Prevention is better than cure,’ as though no-one has thought of this before in the whole history of the health portfolio.

Ms Roxon —What are you doing about it?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The member for Gellibrand!

Ms Roxon —What are you doing about it?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Gellibrand is a serial interjector. I warn her.

Mr ABBOTT —The member for Gellibrand will have her curiosity satisfied, believe me. What will not be satisfied is the curiosity the Australian people have about what actual policy Labor has in the health area.

We all know that since 1996 this government has delivered enormous economic benefits to the people of Australia. Real wages have gone up by 20 per cent and real net wealth per head has increased by 100 per cent, and one of the reasons we have seen these outstanding economic results is that the Howard government has invested in an ever-improving health system. When members opposite were last in government, just 15 per cent of federal government spending was on Health and Ageing portfolio programs. Today it is over 20 per cent and there will be more, let me assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, in tonight’s budget.

As the American National Bureau of Economic Research pointed out, each year, improvement in a population’s life expectancy contributes to a four per cent increase in national output. It is no wonder that GDP is up, that wages are up and that real wealth is up, because since 1996 alone there has been a two-year increase in life expectancy for females and a three-year increase in life expectancy for males. That is due to the policy of the Howard government. If you listened to the member for Gellibrand, you would think that we have no interest in delivering better services and no interest in tackling chronic diseases; that all we are interested in is trying to rip off the states. What a contemptible and silly assertion from the member for Gellibrand. She says we have no interest in tackling chronic disease. Let me tell her that, thanks in part—not completely but in part—to policies of the Howard government, smoking, one of the most serious preventable causes of ill health, has decreased from 24 per cent in 1995 to 17 per cent in 2004. She says we have done nothing about cardiovascular disease. Let me tell her that in 1995 there were 53,407 deaths from cardiovascular disease. In 2005 there were 46,134 deaths from cardiovascular disease. If she stood up and said that the government could do more, that the government could do better or that this was good but it was not good enough, she would have some credibility, but this ridiculous idea that we have never thought of trying to reduce cardiovascular disease, that we are not interested in people dying of cardiovascular disease, is unworthy of a serious member of parliament because it is so obviously and self-evidently wrong.

In 1996 there were 61 deaths from breast cancer per 100,000 women. In 2004, that figure of 61 had dropped to 51. I am not claiming sole credit for the Howard government, but it did not happen entirely by accident; it happened because this government does take preventative health seriously and we do fund screening programs. In 1996 there were three deaths per 100,000 women from cervical cancer. In 2004 there were just 1.8 deaths. I deeply regret that the death rate is as high as that, but this improvement in the death rate did not happen by accident and it did not happen because God ordained a fall in the death rate; it happened because of better treatments, more screening and better awareness, and the federal government had a hand in all these things. As I said, all these improvements—the improvement in life expectancy, the fall in cardiovascular deaths and the fall in cancer deaths—did not happen by accident; they happened in part because of federal government policies.

On immunisation—and I do not want to sound like I am practising the blame game—heaven forbid that anyone should point out that the former government spent just $13 million on vaccines. Heaven forbid that anyone should say that the current government is actually interested simply because we spend some $200 million, almost $300 million, per year on vaccines! But we do, and that is one reason death rates have fallen. We have boosted screening programs and we are in the process of introducing a bowel-screening program, not because we are just a bunch of heartless, hard-hearted politicians shifting the blame wherever we can but because we care and because we want to do what is practical and reasonable to help deliver better outcomes to the Australian people.

There is constant reiteration from the member for Gellibrand that we do not have any policies, that we do not care and that we spend only something like two per cent of the health budget on screening or prevention. I ask her to tell me what her predecessors did which was significantly better than what we are doing. Why didn’t members opposite spend more on immunisation? Why didn’t members opposite think of a bowel-screening program?

Ms Roxon —I am happy to answer the question that the minister is asking me, if he has invited me to, because I thought perhaps the HIV and smoking initiatives that were actually the Keating government’s might be—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—The member for Gellibrand will resume her seat. That is not a point of order and she should know that. She has already been warned by the previous occupant of this chair.

Mr ABBOTT —Why didn’t the Keating government think of health checks for people over the age of 75? Why didn’t the Keating government think of health checks for Indigenous people throughout life? Why didn’t the Keating government come up with the mid-life health check for people with risk factors? How dare she stand there and say that the government has no interest in these things!

Ms Burke —Who’s ‘she’, by the way?

Mr ABBOTT —How dare the member for Gellibrand stand there and say that the government has done nothing when all these things have happened through this government’s efforts. There were 650,000 GP care plans put in place in the last financial year. How dare she say nothing has been done. How dare she scorn the work of those GPs and the benefits the plans will deliver to their patients. More than 250,000 team care plans were put in place last year and more than half a million allied health consultations were delivered for people with chronic diseases and complex care needs last year, thanks to the policy of this government. How dare the member for Gellibrand stand up and say that none of that counts, that none of that matters.

It suggests ignorance, partisanship and a sheer reluctance to take people seriously that the member for Gellibrand comes up and engages in this utterly vacuous political badinage. It really is utterly empty. It is very hard to take the Leader of the Opposition seriously as a credible alternative Prime Minister when he has this kind of performance from the putative health minister under any future Labor government.

I know what will happen tonight when new and improved policies are announced to address issues that have been raised from time to time. She will say, ‘We thought of it first.’ Oh yeah, right! Sure! Yeah, sure, you were the first person to think of diabetes and you were the first person to think of allied health professionals helping people with chronic and complex conditions that were impacting on their general health!

None of it can be taken seriously until we actually have a few concrete policies from members opposite. Anyone can stand up and complain. Anyone can say, ‘Oh, an AIHW report has said this.’ Anyone can say, ‘If the world were different, people might not need to go to hospital.’ The challenge is to actually come up with ways of doing better which are economically responsible and which are consistent with the personal freedom expected by citizens in a great democracy such as this.

That is the challenge, but until such time as we see some serious policy from members opposite the member for Gellibrand can witter on all she likes about increasing rates of diabetes and about the increase in obesity. She can talk all she likes about challenges and prevention but, without some concrete policies, it is all absolutely empty. It is but sounding brass and tinkling cymbal. The only policy in this area that we have seen from members opposite over the last few years is Medicare Gold, a policy that was utterly discredited at the last election and was subsequently denounced as a turkey by no less a person than the then President of the Australian Labor Party. That is the only serious health policy we have had from members opposite in the last 11 years. I have to say that, on the evidence of speech after empty speech and cliche-ridden talk from the shadow minister, they are not going to do any better in 2007.