| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
  Interview: Tony Abbott June 20, 2004 Reporter : Laurie Oakes  With health likely to be a major issue in the upcoming Federal election, the Federal Health Minister, Tony Abbott, will be talking to Sunday's political editor, Laurie Oakes, about what Mr Abbott calls Labor's secret plan to change Medicare beyond recognition, and turn it into a UK-style National Health Service ... Transcript JANA WENDT: Opinion polls show that the primary concern of most Australians is health, and with a Federal election almost imminent, both sides are trying to push their barrow. Health Minister Tony Abbott claims a Labor proposal to set up a national health system would lead to long delays and rationing of medicine. But the Shadow Health Minister Julia Gillard says the proposal was commissioned by the Victorian Government, and has nothing to do with Federal Labor. She says it was simply a blueprint for reform, a short-term inquiry. Well, the Federal Health Minister Tony Abbott has been talking about those issues with Sunday's political editor Laurie Oakes. LAURIE OAKES: Mr Abbott, welcome to the programme. HEALTH MINISTER TONY ABBOTT: Morning, Laurie. LAURIE OAKES: It's likely, isn't it, that the Prime Minister will go to Government House within a fortnight to call an election for August the seventh? TONY ABBOTT: Well, that's something for the Prime Minister, and I think that that's a question that I might pass on, Laurie. LAURIE OAKES: Well, possible? TONY ABBOTT: Oh, look, anything's possible. The only thing that's certain is that there will be an election some time this year. LAURIE OAKES: Do you think the Prime Minister now has Mark Latham's measure? TONY ABBOTT: I think that the more the public see of Latham the less they are likely to like him. But - but look, anyone can win an election. And the Government is certainly not at all complacent, and nothing is being taken for granted. LAURIE OAKES: As manager of Government business in the House, if there is going to be an election you've got to clear the decks. Is it true that you're going to ram legislation for the US-Australia free trade agreement through Parliament this week? TONY ABBOTT: We'll certainly be introducing legislation this week. But whether it gets rammed through Parliament or not will depend very much on the Opposition, and the big question, Laurie, is does the Labor Party support the US free trade agreement. They say they support the alliance, but it's hard to see how they can support the alliance if they don't support the free trade agreement, because it's surely in Australia's national interest to link up ever more closely with the world's largest and strongest economy. LAURIE OAKES: How can an Opposition decide whether something gets rammed through Parliament? TONY ABBOTT: Well, the Opposition, as you might have noticed, Laurie, has the numbers in the Senate. LAURIE OAKES: Okay, but are you going to ram it through the lower house to put the weights on Labor in the Senate? TONY ABBOTT: Well, let's - let's wait and see if - if Labor supports the alliance they ought to support the free trade agreement. LAURIE OAKES: I mean, it's pretty clear that Labor won't whack it through the Senate yet because they're still waiting for a Senate committee report, and it's quite unreasonable to expect them to vote on this in the Senate until they get that report and study it, isn't it? TONY ABBOTT: But - but the - the legislation can go through without needing, for argument's sake, every last detail about every administrative arrangement that might follow. LAURIE OAKES: But if the legislation's through there's no point doing any more. The thing will be law. TONY ABBOTT: Well, I - I'm not sure about that. The point, Laurie, is that where Labor is quibbling is - where they say they've got problems is invariably about things that will be administrative arrangements rather than legislative arrangements. LAURIE OAKES: But unless it's law there will be no administrative arrangements. You're talking in circles. TONY ABBOTT: Well, no, I'm not, Laurie. I'm saying that - if you take my own area, for instance, of the - of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Labor says that they're very concerned about - about drug prices rising. Well, drug prices won't rise under the free trade agreement. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme legislation won't change. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee will remain the gate-keeper to our system, and cost effectiveness will remain the test of - of drugs coming into the PBS. And this independent review process will be a purely administrative mechanism. So to refuse to pass the free trade legislation because you claim to have concerns about the PBS, that just won't wash. LAURIE OAKES: Polls show that health is the voters' primary concern. Do you think that will prove to be true in this election campaign? TONY ABBOTT: I think it may well become a very big issue in the campaign, Laurie, because what the Labor Party has - is sleepwalking into supporting is a huge change to our health system. What they're saying is that we should set up this National Health Reform Commission, and all existing health spending - that's 60-odd billion dollars worth of Government spending, should be put in a pool to be controlled by this National Health Reform Commission, so ... LAURIE OAKES: Now, hang on. What Julia Gillard has proposed is a National Health Reform Commission to develop a blueprint - these are her words - develop a blueprint for the reform of Commonwealth and state funding arrangements. In other words, this is not a body to administer, this is an inquiry. TONY ABBOTT: No, no, but what she actually said to the AMA conference last month ... LAURIE OAKES: That's what I'm quoting. That is from the AMA conference speech. TONY ABBOTT: But - and then she said that it would involve the pooling of the PBS, the MBS, the health care agreements, the age care agreements, and existing state - state spending. So what's she's talking about is an extraordinarily radical change to our health system. LAURIE OAKES: Well, she's not talking about having a health reform commission overseeing all that, because in another speech to the National Press Club she said this would be a time-limited body, similar to other inquiries. What we need is a short, focused reform process. So all this is an inquiry. TONY ABBOTT: But - but why ... LAURIE OAKES: And you're claiming it's a draconian bureaucratic machinery to run the whole health system. TONY ABBOTT: But - but Laurie, why did she then talk about pooling all of these funds in her speech to the AMA national conference in Brisbane last month? I was standing ... LAURIE OAKES: I assume because she's ... TONY ABBOTT: ... next to her. LAURIE OAKES: I assume because ... TONY ABBOTT: I was standing next to her, Laurie, when she said this. LAURIE OAKES: I mean, it seems pretty clear to me that the aim of any reform process would be to cut out waste and duplication from two levels of government, get them co-operating. So naturally you'd be pooling the funds of two levels. TONY ABBOTT: Well, but what she's talking about is not getting rid of two levels of government. She's talking about creating a third level of government. She's talking about running the whole health system through this National Health Reform Commission, which ... LAURIE OAKES: No, no. TONY ABBOTT: ... would then devolve money to the area health authorities. LAURIE OAKES: She says the National Health Reform Commission would be an inquiry. Would have no executive function. TONY ABBOTT: So why did ... LAURIE OAKES: How can - how can you build this up into a draconian new bureaucratic body? TONY ABBOTT: Because, Laurie, that's what she said to the AMA. She talked about pooling the funding ... LAURIE OAKES: I've just quoted - I've just quoted what she said ... TONY ABBOTT: She's - well, look Laurie ... LAURIE OAKES: The National - she said at the National Press Club: "What we need is a short focus reform process. That will be the task of the national health reform commission. It's a short-term one." TONY ABBOTT: And then she said to the AMA conference that the essence of an integrated national system, which is what she supports, and watch this - and what this commission will be working towards, is a pooling of all the existing health funding - the MBS, the PBS, the aged care money, the hospital agreement money - all of it goes into one big pot, and this unelected, unaccountable, undemocratic body runs the system in the same way that the national health service in the UK is administered ... LAURIE OAKES: But you see, that's not what she ... TONY ABBOTT: ... with its endless queues and endless rationing. LAURIE OAKES: That's not what she said, but I've made that point. Is it necessary ... TONY ABBOTT: But Laurie, I'm making - I'm making the point to you, Laurie, that it is precisely what she did say ... LAURIE OAKES: It isn't Tony. TONY ABBOTT: ... to the Australian Medical Association conference in Brisbane. LAURIE OAKES: It is not. She said to that conference: "The job of this body would be to develop the blueprint for reform." TONY ABBOTT: And then she talked about the essence ... LAURIE OAKES: But let's ... TONY ABBOTT: ... the essence - the essence of an integrated national health system would be the pooling of funding. LAURIE OAKES: You - you yourself have talked about the problem of two levels of Government. You've talked about your desire to have the Federal Government take over hospitals, for example. What will you do, if you don't like the Julia Gillard proposal to have a reform process, what would you do to eliminate the two levels of funding, the buck-passing, blame shifting, cost shifting? TONY ABBOTT: Well, I certainly accept, Laurie, that even the wackiest of proposals, such as Julia Gillard's, has some momentary appeal, because this blame game has been going on for a long time. LAURIE OAKES: Yeah. TONY ABBOTT: But the point I keep making is that the states run the public hospital system. The Federal Government can't unilaterally invade state areas of responsibility. What this Federal Government will do is continue to administer better what we control, and we will try to work co-operatively with the states at the interface. LAURIE OAKES: You say ... TONY ABBOTT: But in the end their responsibility is to do better what their constitutional job is. LAURIE OAKES: You say that the Federal Government can't unilaterally invade state fields, but New South Wales Premier Bob Carr, I gather with the agreement of Steve Bracks, has proposed that next Friday's - the COAG - the Australian governments meeting between the premiers and the Prime Minister, agree to a systematic review of the role and responsibilities of the states. Now, he's inviting you in. Will the Federal Government agree to that review? TONY ABBOTT: Well, it's interesting because last year the Prime Minister put on the COAG table a review of responsibilities in health, and the state premiers preferred to go off and do a footy final photo shoot and then stage this walk out. So it's a bit late in the day... LAURIE OAKES: Well, why is it - why is it late in the day? I mean, we're heading for an election, you say there's a need for reform, Bob Carr agrees there's a need for reform, and he's invited you to have a process where the roles of the state and the Federal Government can be sorted out and the cost-shifting and blame shifting can be dealt with, and ... TONY ABBOTT: But ... LAURIE OAKES: ... and you're refusing it. TONY ABBOTT: But the only way to sort it out properly would be to give one level of Government responsibility for the whole system, and there is no ... LAURIE OAKES: But that's what ... TONY ABBOTT: ... suggestion by any ... LAURIE OAKES: ... Bob Carr says. Yes there is - Bob Carr says that you could have the states handing over responsibility for universities, for example, or for health. He's willing to have all that looked at. Why won't the Federal Government join in? TONY ABBOTT: Well - well look, if Bob has finally decided that the public hospital system of New South Wales is too much for him, and he wants to give it to the Federal Government, let him say so. LAURIE OAKES: But you see you're playing politics. You're not being serious about doing anything. You've got an opening here and you won't use it. TONY ABBOTT: Well, as I said ... LAURIE OAKES: Because then you would lose the ability to lose the states for everything, wouldn't you? TONY ABBOTT: Well - well - I haven't blamed the states for anything. I'm just saying that problems in the public hospital system are the states' fault. But the point I - the point I make is this, Laurie: if Bob Carr has decided that now is the time to get rid of the state public hospital system, which he's been comprehensively mismanaging, let him say so. LAURIE OAKES: Well, he's said now's the time to reform the Federal system, which you've called feral federalism, and the Prime Minister has called dysfunctional. Bob Carr's invited - invited an investigation of that, and you're now playing politics. TONY ABBOTT: And - and what the Victorian Government has done is put together a blueprint for what they call a National Health Commission. It's a bit of policy work for Julia Gillard. They've put together this blueprint - a National Health Commission - where again, all the health spending gets put in a common pool, and then it's handed by this National Health Commission to the area health authorities so that they can mismanage everything the way they've currently mismanaged the New South Wales public hospital system. So again, what the states have got in mind is exactly what Federal Labor has got in mind, a National Health Commission which would look much more like the British National Health Service than Australia's Medicare. LAURIE OAKES: Now, the John Curtin house - sorry, the Centenary House affair that you refer to as the rent rort, I notice there's a new website up this morning - www.rentrort.com.au , authorised by you, on this affair. Who's paying for that? Are tax-payers, or the Liberal Party? TONY ABBOTT: No, look, that was put together by volunteers, using my words in the House, and it's not being paid for by tax-payers in any way, shape, or form. But the point I make about Centenary House, Laurie, is that it is a rip-off. A $36 million rip-off of tax-payers by the former Labor government for the Australian Labor Party. And my colleague Philip Ruddock, in response to a Senate call for a judicial inquiry into this, will be making some announcements later on today. LAURIE OAKES: Will he be announcing a judicial inquiry? TONY ABBOTT: Well, that's what the Senate called for. It called for a judicial inquiry. This was a motion in the Senate moved not by the Government but by the Democrats' Andrew Murray, who's long been concerned about this rip-off. And the Government will be responding to that motion later today with a judicial inquiry. LAURIE OAKES: Now, will it be conducted by David Hunt, a former judge in New South Wales in the Supreme Court? TONY ABBOTT: That's - that's - Philip will be making those announcements, but that's my understanding. It will be presided over by a former judge of the New South Wales Supreme Court. LAURIE OAKES: And is it true that you had someone else lined up from Victoria but the Steve Bracks Government wouldn't allow that to go ahead? TONY ABBOTT: Look, this is not something that I have direct carriage of. The - the legal side of this. But certainly one of the problems with running judicial inquiries in Australia today is that a lot of the courts and many different governments are reluctant to release their judges. LAURIE OAKES: And this is not an election gimmick? TONY ABBOTT: Look, it's an Andrew Murray Senate motion. It's a Democrat motion that the Government is responding to quite - quite properly. LAURIE OAKES: Mr Abbott, we thank you. TONY ABBOTT: Thanks Laurie. Transcript produced by Media Monitors target-monitor-analyse |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
