Answers to questions during Question Time are as much about what the answerer does not want to say as they are about providing information.
What they do and don’t say also gives good clues as to how the government wishes to attack or defend.
So let us see what the Prime Minister did and did not say in response to a question this week on the vexed issue of GP co-payments.
The question came from the ALP’s, Shadow Minister for Health, Catharine King:
Ms KING: My question is to the Prime Minister. The Australian Medical Association and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners have warned that the government’s GP tax could threaten immunisation rates for children. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that childhood immunisation rates will not drop because the government's GP tax discourages parents from taking their kids to the doctor? Why should families suffer because of the Prime Minister’s broken promises?
It’s a good question, because it is actually about an important consequence of the Budget. But the last sentence strays into general territory and, as we shall see, does give the Prime Minister an escape route.
The Prime Minster opens with a claim that sentence has "many falsehoods". Rather oddly, he does not then go on to innumerate any of them.
Let me quote from someone—I am not sure that he is a wise man but he has certainly said some wise things:
"But there’s a better way of operating a health system, and the change should hardly hurt at all … the ideal model involves a small co-payment -not enough to put a dent in your weekly budget, but enough to make you think twice before you call the doc. And the idea is 'hardly a radical idea'."
Most members of parliament if they have had any sort of a career in public or semi-public life have written or said things in the past that now sees them doing the opposite.
Those long-time watchers of Question Time will know that whenever a member of the government quotes someone as having said some wise things, you can be sure they’re about to quote someone from the opposition:
"It is an idea which certainly appeals to Labor’s shadow Assistant Treasurer. I can understand that the shadow Assistant Treasurer could be fairly uncomfortable, but come on over! If you don’t like it there, come on over!"
And so it is with this case. Tony Abbott has been greatly fond of quoting an op-ed written by Andrew Leigh, the Shadow Assistant Treasurer written 2003 suggesting the $2.50 co-payment introduced in the dying days of the Hawke’s Prime Ministership in 1991 should be re-introduced.
Incidentally, $2.50 in 1991 would equal to about $4.30 in today’s money – about 40% less than $7.50 proposed by the Abbott government.
Perhaps the 5 swinging voters outside Leigh’s electorate who know who he is will be swayed by this line of argument. Not sure about anyone else, though.
Most members of parliament if they have had any sort of a career in public or semi-public life have written or said things in the past that now sees them doing the opposite. From Andrew Leigh’s co-payment article, Greg Hunt’s thesis advocating a carbon price, Joe Hockey protesting against uni fees, many an MP would probably take back a few things (or work hard to explain the context has changed). But at least they’re not like some who say a lot of things while campaigning to be Prime Minister that they now argue against.
At this moment we get our first point of order:
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order on standing order 104. When there is a question about immunisation rates, direct relevance does matter.
The SPEAKER: I would remind the member for Watson that when the mantra is added the question is broadened enormously. The Prime Minister has the call.
"The mantra" was the last sentence on the "Prime Minister’s broken promises". Not that it would matter anyway, given the latitude Bronwyn Bishop allows ministers when answering, but at least this gives her the fig leaf she needs to pretend that she is being impartial.
Of course prior to becoming speaker she told Sky News’ David Speers that ministers must be “directly relevant” and not on “tangent”. But then many politicians say things in the past they now do the opposite of ...
Mr ABBOTT: Labor’s shadow Assistant Treasurer is not the only person who supports the government on this issue. Labor’s former prime minister, Mr Hawke, the father of the co-payment, supports what this government is doing.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon will desist or is warned.
Tony Abbott has been pretty big on Bob Hawke this week. Why? Because Hawke introduced the co-payment in 1991, he is apparently now the fount of all wisdom. I look forward to Abbott introducing other failed Bob Hawke plans. The Australia Card, perhaps?
Also while blowing Bob Hawke’s trumpet might please Bob Hawke, it’d be interesting to know who is the intended audience, given Hawke left office just over 22 years ago. Anyone under the age of 40 was too young to have voted in an election Hawke stood in.
The only people who can really remember Hawke with any clarity would also remember the co-payment was almost the final nail in his coffin, and Keating dumped it as soon as he dumped Hawke.
You might note we haven’t yet heard about the impact of the GP co-payment on immunisation. Don’t worry there will be a full and frank response. Here it comes:
Mr ABBOTT: There are a whole range of ways to get immunised. Yes, a GP is one way, but there are also community health centres and other ways of being immunised. It is very important that immunisation rates stay up, and this government certainly supports that.
Implicit in his final response is that the fee will deter people from going to the GP, which is why he suggests community health centres are an option. Others know this reality, and it’s why Queensland are considering offering free vaccination clinics.
So to sum up, "Can the Prime Minister guarantee that childhood immunisation rates will not drop" because of the GP co-payment?
That would be a "no".
Share
