Download Fragment

Wednesday, 17 August 2011
Page: 8305

Mr DUTTON (Dickson) (11:16): If we could see something new in this debate that provided us with some promise, some hope—even a slight glimmer—we would be happy, let me tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker Thomson. I think what the Minister for Health and Ageing has just done is bell the cat on what a failure this bill is. If members of the Australian public read this bill, the National Health Reform Amendment (National Health Performance Authority) Bill 2011, they would look at the words 'National Health Performance Authority' and presumably, like me, think it was about the performance of our public hospitals and an authority that would improve that performance. But what the minister has basically just said is that what they are doing—again, in true Labor style—is creating yet another health bureaucracy. This was the great failing of the state Labor premiers: every time they received more money in Health, they did not put it into doctors, nurses or beds; they put it into new bureaucracies. The fact is that this is what is happening at a federal level.

This is a new bureaucracy, a toothless tiger. It is going to gather statistics and look at poor performance and, in the end, do nothing about it. That is, I think, the best way to sum up this government's approach not just to health but to the whole running of government. This government has lurched from one policy disaster to the next, and now that dangerous disease has infected the health portfolio. This is a government that promised to increase performance, but at every turn—and we see the evidence in black and white in these 29 amendments—we see that they are not going to do anything more than give additional and overriding powers to the state premiers.

I want to take the House to government amendment (7), which abolishes or strikes out the previous section, which had additional provisions about reports. Basically, there is a whole section that has been rewritten. Subsection (6) of the amendment reads:

If the report indicates poor performance by:

(a)   a local hospital network in a State, the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory; or

(b)   a public hospital in a State, the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory;

then, at least 15 days before completing the preparation of the report, the Performance Authority must give a copy of the final draft of the report to the manager of the network or hospital.

But listen to this:

The manager of the network or hospital is not entitled to give the Performance Authority any comments about the final draft.

The government have gone completely insane with their proposed 29 amendments. This amendment takes away any meaningful capacity, once they have identified a poor performance, to do anything about it. That is why even the No. 1 ticket holder for this government, our friend the member for Lyne, says that this is a watering-down, this is bad policy and these amendments make bad policy worse. I think this is an opportunity for the member for Lyne and others to vote against these bad amendments. We will be voting against this bill because we believe that these amendments make a bad bill worse.

Ms Roxon interjecting—

Mr DUTTON: That is the problem that this minister has. She has absolutely no capacity to deliver what is said publicly. There are other amendments which are worthy of noting, but in many parts they basically go towards withdrawing the minister's own capacity. I take the House to amendment (11), which alters section 93 of the bill. Subsection (1) says:

The Performance Authority CEO is to be appointed by the Minister.

That is in the bill in its original form. In the amendment, 'minister' has been struck out, with the performance authority CEO now to be appointed by the performance authority. Subsection (3) says:

Before appointing a person as the Performance Authority CEO, the Minister must consult the Performance Authority.

The minister, who has carriage of policy in this area, under the original bill had the power to make the appointment and was required to consult the performance authority on that. Otherwise, the minister was not overwhelmed with considerations; she just had to consult them. But government amendment (12) strikes out the words 'the minister must consult the performance authority' and inserts in its place the words:

Performance Authority must consult the Minister.

The minister does not have final say. The minister can provide some sort of feedback or response, like she is some sort of subservient public servant providing advice to a minister. The relationship has been flipped and it completely undermines this process. (Time expired)

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr KJ Thomson ): The question is that the amendments be agreed to. All those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it.

Dr Southcott: Mr Deputy Speaker, I was on my feet.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you were not.

Dr Southcott: I am on my feet.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, but I have put the question. I think the ayes have it. Is a division required?

Mr Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I will seek to dissent from your ruling. Clearly, the member was on his feet seeking the call.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member was not on his feet seeking the call so I put the question.

Mr Baldwin: Then I will seek to dissent from your ruling.

Mr Dutton: Mr Deputy Speaker, on indulgence, if it would help the course of the debate, I think in the circumstances it is reasonable to hear from the shadow parliamentary secretary for health in a succinct way and this is the process. That would preclude other courses.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand the spirit in which that is offered. The fact is that the member for Boothby was sitting down. I therefore called for the division. For a member to rise after a division having been called, they are not entitled to get the call and to speak.

Dr Southcott: Mr Deputy Speaker, we have not gone into a division. We are in the consideration in detail stage. We are still discussing the bill and the minister had had no chance to respond to the issues raised by the shadow minister.

Ms Roxon: Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order, if I might contribute here, it would be a very unusual process and it is no doubt provoked by the toing and froing. I do not think it is in the House's interest for there to be a dissent from a Speaker's ruling. I am comfortable—

Mr Dutton interjecting—

Ms Roxon: If you would actually listen to what I am about to say, it might be helpful. For once, it will take two seconds for you to sit quietly while I say it was probably in the House's interest to be able to hear any other speakers, but I do think it is timely to bring this debate to a close. The shadow minister has spoken probably 10 times and not raised anything new. The member for Boothby has not spoken. It is an awkward position because the Deputy Speaker rightly put the question when no-one was on their feet. But I am certainly comfortable, if it assists the House and the chair, for members to be able to make contributions. We are not seeking to stop that but, ultimately, the contributions should be about this debate and then we should bring the debate to a conclusion and allow the vote to be taken.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member for Paterson wishes to withdraw his dissent, I will allow further discussion on the question that the amendments be agreed to.

Mr Baldwin: I withdraw, given your statement, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the member for Boothby.