Sky News Australian Agenda Peter Dutton 24 February 2013

Interview with Peter Dutton Australian Agenda program, 24 February 2013 Peter van Onselen: And as mentioned off the top we're joined here in the studio now by the Shadow Health spokesperson, Peter Dutton. Mr Dutton, welcome to the program. Peter Dutton: Pleasure, thanks Peter. Peter van Onselen: There's problems on the Labor side in terms of health funding arrangements between the Commonwealth and the states. It seems like normally, as Shadow Health spokesperson, we don't see that much of you. It's almost as though the Coalition are trying to hide health policy debates from view but Labor's got a problem this week, and here you are. Is this unusual for you to be allowed out into the media? Peter Dutton: Well, I accepted your invitation. I'm very happy to be back with you in the studio. Thank you for the warm welcome. Look, I think it has been a disastrous week, a chaotic week for the Government, particularly when it comes to health policy, and part of the reason of course that the Government hasn't been able to speak about health is because they've got no runs on the board. It's really been a very difficult period for them. They can't hang their hat on mental health rollouts which have been a disaster. They can't say that they've opened more beds. They're now at war with the Queensland and NSW Governments in particular over funding. They've gone, cap in hand, back to their original position in Victoria by now reversing some cuts down there. So I don't think there's any difference now between health and some of the other policy disasters over the last five years. Peter van Onselen: But all the problems that you mentioned, doesn't that make now the time to strike if the Coalition wants to be seen as serious in the health policy area by announcing a serious set of alternative policies that you'll take to the election.
Australian Agenda 24 February 2013 Peter Dutton

Peter Dutton: We've done a little bit of that but we'll do more in the run-up to the election. I think at the last election one of our crowning moments was our ability to trump the Government on mental health. The Government over the course of this term hasn't been able to roll out mental health facilities and programs and services. And so there's a lot of anger. So we'll continue to highlight the difficulties that they've got but at the right time we'll announce our policies, and I think people will be impressed particularly with the way in which we've... Peter van Onselen: What will be the right time? Peter Dutton: Well, I think in the run-up to the election, there's obviously traditionally a 33-day campaign. I know the Prime Minister says nobody's campaigning at the moment but therell be an appropriate time and we made an announcement to freeze the area of medical research from any cuts, to quarantine it from any cuts. I think that was a significant policy announcement particularly given the budget context at the moment, but we'll roll out policies at a time that suits us, not the Labor Party. Paul Kelly: Do you think that the Gillard Government did the right thing giving Victoria that extra 107 million? Peter Dutton: Well, I think they shouldn't have pulled out in the first place, Paul. I think the Prime Minister's big problem is that she's now, at least in the public's mind, somebody who breaks her promises and can't be trusted and leads a chaotic Government and I think this debate just underscored all of those problems for her. She promised the funding. She personally negotiated the funding agreement, put her signature to the paper, then walked away from it, and people were sent letters telling them that their elective surgery was going to be cancelled, nurses were put off, doctors were put off, beds were closed. And the reality is that now having reversed that cut, the damage having been done, I think it's very hard for the Prime Minister to claw back credibility. But of course what she's done is not just affect patients but she's now bitten herself off an enormous problem in NSW where there's still $138 million outstanding by way of payments there, and $103 million in Queensland. So now she's bought herself a problem in those two key states by just reversing the cuts in Victoria. Paul Kelly: Well, just to clarify that answer, I think what you're saying is that you think the Government did the wrong thing at the end of last year when they cut back funding, I

Australian Agenda

24 February 2013

Peter Dutton

think the figure of about 1.5, 1.6 billion has been mentioned, so you think that was the wrong thing to do. Peter Dutton: I think particularly the wrong thing to do was to cut funding part way through a financial year. That's what's really sent a shudder across health networks. So a hospital board that's running a hospital was told by Julia Gillard as a result of these cuts "You're going to have to cut beds" and by announcing a funding cut part way through a financial year it has a double impact because they then have to find the savings in the second half of the year and services announce that they were going to close beds and cut elective surgery. Paul Kelly: Well, the Government was trying to find savings, quite clearly. Peter Dutton: They wanted to get back to surplus. That was all in their context. Paul Kelly: Sure, sure, but what you're saying is the Opposition opposes that. Peter Dutton: We oppose particularly that retrospective cut part way through a financial year that just underscores this chaos approach and I don't think it's a Government that's got any credibility in the health space now and particularly for those doctors and nurses on the coalface that were inflicted with the pain of this cut, to have the Government break their agreement part way through a financial year is almost without precedence and it's bad for patients. Paul Kelly: I think the message you're really conveying here is that as far as the Coalition is concerned, given the budgetary challenge that it faces, it won't be making significant cuts in the health budget. Is that essentially where we are? Peter Dutton: I think both parties will make their announcements in relation to health funding going forward based on the campaign. Paul Kelly: But that's surely the logic of what you're saying. Peter Dutton: I think the bigger point, Paul, is that it's intolerable for a Government, a Federal Government in the 21st century in our country to be cutting budgets part way through

Australian Agenda

24 February 2013

Peter Dutton

a financial year to hospitals that they'd already promised funding to. That's why elective surgery waiting lists have blown out. It's why people are angry, particularly doctors and nurses, when they see beds closing. And then for the Government to backflip but only do it in one jurisdiction. So the uncertainty still exists... Simon Benson: Peter... Peter Dutton: ...right around the country otherwise. Simon Benson: Sorry to interrupt. Can I just ask you this. Have you drilled down to what is really going on with this debate with the Victorians? Because I understand it's probably going to be a lot broader than that. And it has to do with the ABS data on population figures. Now, the Opposition and the Victorian Government have accused the Federal Government of manipulating those figures. From what I understand, those figures, there are problems actually with the figures. Now, if that is a problem it becomes your problem in Government too should you get into Government because you'll have to fund models based on that same data. So have you actually had a proper look at it? Do you understand what's going on here? Peter Dutton: I have and it's a technical debate but I'll drill it down. Simon Benson: It may be technical but it comes to funding which will be your problem as well as the Federal Government's problem. Peter Dutton: Sure, so I'll try and distil it down in this way. The Government signed an agreement, Julia Gillard signed a funding agreement and it was based on particular forecasts in terms of population growth. The same figures were used by Wayne Swan when he signed off on funding to Local Government authorities around the country which showed the growth figures well over 1%. The Government, as I said, adopted those same figures and those same assumptions for the health care agreement. But when they were looking for money in MYEFO in November of last year, they decided to pull out a dodgy interpretation of the ABS data which reduced the funding growth or the population growth from over 1% down to about 0.03. It almost flatlined and that's where the Government got their $1.6 billion of savings or the savings in particular from this financial year. Simon Benson:

Australian Agenda

24 February 2013

Peter Dutton

So if we were to assume that is the case then, and from what you're saying presumably you will use new data which is going to cost you a lot more money if you want to restore that funding. Peter Dutton: I'm not convinced that the Government has a credible argument when it comes to the funding. I think they used that argument to try and achieve savings to get themselves back to surplus. So look, we'll have a look at the expert advice but there's a Senate inquiry that's going on at the moment that I think will demonstrate that Wayne Swan and Julia Gillard and Tanya Plibersek engaged in a process of deception and basically fraud from the Commonwealth in terms of the way in which they've interpreted that data. It is a very serious matter and I hope that the Senate inquiry can get to the bottom of it. Simon Benson: But the logic of all this of course, and you're on the ERC of the Coalition party room... Peter Dutton: For my seniors, yeah. Simon Benson: And you were in Sydney I believe a couple of weeks ago for three days having ERC meetings. I'd love to know what was discussed in those meetings but presumably you're looking at a lot of problems that you're going to have funding policies and programs into the future, this being one of them. Is it fair to say though now, particularly with this problem that's arisen in health, that you can't yet determine what your policies are going to be because you don't know what the real money situation is? Peter Dutton: No, it's true to say that in ERC, without going into the detail, that we're looking for savings across portfolios, particularly where there's waste. Simon Benson: Is yours one? Peter Dutton: If I look to my own portfolio of health and ageing, the Government's established 12 new bureaucracies over the course of the last five years yet on the other hand they've promised 16 early psychosis prevention intervention centres and they've delivered zero. Simon Benson: So you're going to cut some of those bureaucracies. Peter Dutton:

Australian Agenda

24 February 2013

Peter Dutton

We will cut back where there is waste and I think there is a lot of waste in the new bureaucracies that have been created... Peter van Onselen: Will you put that back into front-line health or will that just go back into consolidation... Peter Dutton: I'll put money back into front-line health services and particularly around mental health where we've got a real passion, where Tony had a great record as Health Minister. Peter van Onselen: So no money cut in health spending. Peter Dutton: Well, we'll make announcements when we go forward, but we are not going to be wedded to, even though there was good intention about it, we're not going to be wedded to all of these new bureaucracies, where there's now a billion dollars recurrent spend. Paul Kelly: What are the main new bureaucracies you're talking about? What are the main ones? Peter Dutton: Well, they've got Medicare Locals, which is essentially a duplication of the health bureaucracy in Canberra but spread across the country. There is a more efficient way in which we can coordinate that primary health care response. They've established new health funding authorities which is at the core of the debate over the course of the last week. They established it at a cost of millions of dollars. Julia Gillard's now going to subvert that process. And the list goes on. Simon Benson: Could you tell me, why is there a need for a federal health department anyway and can you tell me what purpose it serves and whether or not you believe and the Coalition believes that you actually need a duplication of services such as the federal health department? What do they do and how are you going to save money? Peter Dutton: Simon, the first point is that I don't believe in duplication. I think the debate in health over the coming decade will be about productivity and efficiency gain. I think whilst there continues to be huge growth in our proportion of spend in health to GDP we have to be smarter about the ways in which we spend that health dollar. Simon Benson: I guess what I'm asking is will you look at cutting the entire federal health department?

Australian Agenda

24 February 2013

Peter Dutton

Peter Dutton: Well, that's the first point. The second point is in relation to what does the federal health department do, well, they run the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme which is incredibly important because it delivers... Simon Benson: Which could be run out of Treasury. Peter Dutton: Well, it delivers a very good scheme, the way in which we administered medicines and dispensed those. Obviously MBS in terms of the ways in which we pay doctors and for other primary health care services. So there's an essential need for an efficient federal bureaucracy. But where there's duplication between the states and the Commonwealth I think we should be looking to strike those out and get money back to front-line services. Peter van Onselen: Simon Benson mentioned the Expenditure Review Committee which you're involved in. Has the ERC met and discussed, just to pick a topic, cuts to the ABC budget? Peter Dutton: Look, we've had all sorts of discussions. Peter van Onselen: Is that one of them? Peter Dutton: It's - it's not and I'm not going to go into detail and rule things in and out, but we haven't had that discussion. We're very wedded to publicly funding an ABC and making sure that it delivers a good service and that it's representative of the broader Australian community in terms of their content and I think that's very important. But look, I sat on the ERC when we were in Government when I was Assistant Treasurer and I've continued that role since we've been in Opposition. It's never an easy task but the fact is the Government has pushed us into enormous debt, there's been phenomenal waste. The Government continues in chaos and I think it's a very valuable exercise in Opposition, and it applies a discipline which has been very useful for us. Peter van Onselen: There's a legitimate question about the structure of the Coalition's front bench, isn't there? You're a former Assistant Treasurer from the Howard Government when Peter Costello was Treasurer. You've got a former senior adviser to Peter Costello now in your parliamentary ranks in Kelly O'Dwyer. You're about to have a former West Australian Treasurer, Christian Porter entering the parliament. And of course you've got

Australian Agenda

24 February 2013

Peter Dutton

Arthur Sinodinos who was at the heart of all of the economic reforms during the Howard years when he was John Howard's chief of staff. Yet not one of those names that I've mentioned is part of the finance team for the Coalition and won't be after the election because Tony Abbott has pledged that he won't be adjusting his team. That's just plain ridiculous surely. Peter Dutton: Well, if you're saying that we've got an embarrassment of riches, Peter, as opposed to... Peter van Onselen: But an embarrassment of riches not in the portfolios where they can actually have those riches taken advantage of. Peter Dutton: Well, I don't think that's right. I mean, Arthur Sinodinos is on a couple of committees. He's on the ERC, serves there with me. He's also head of our Waste Watch Committee. He's identified a billion dollars plus worth of red tape that we can eliminate which will be of enormous benefit to the Australian business community. Christian Porter, who's an incredibly talented person but not in the parliament yet. You talk of Kelly O'Dwyer that Tony Smith worked with, Peter Costello. There are a number of people who worked in the finance area. But the important point here is that 16 of us were Ministers in the Howard Government and 16 of us who are now part of Tony Abbott's Shadow Ministry I think will have a great capacity to, if we win the election, settle things down very quickly, send a very strong message to the Australian business community that it is safe to invest again. I think we can address all sorts of waste areas with the team that we've got. We can get efficiencies going again, we can get investment, we can get employment up. And that's, I think, a very positive message to sell to the community. Peter van Onselen: Yesterday Senator Gary Humphries who's on the front bench as a parliamentary secretary lost his preselection in the ACT. Now he holds two Parl Sec Shadow portfolios. Should Tony Abbott use this as the excuse to re-jig his front bench when he'd been avoiding doing so previously? Peter Dutton: Well, it's an issue for Tony but the point to make about Gary Humphries is that he'll be a sad loss because preselection battles are always bruising but that's a matter for the internal membership of the party. Gary has been a fine contributor, continues to contribute well, particularly over the summer break when there were all sorts of natural tragedies going on, he was keeping us all informed about assistance for our community. So these are always difficult internal matters but the fact is that, and I think it's an important point and it's why Labor's where they are at the moment, Peter, we have the ability to attract a lot of good talent to our ranks, both on the front bench

Australian Agenda

24 February 2013

Peter Dutton

and the backbench and I think it's part of the reason that Tony Abbott will be successful at the next election. Paul Kelly: I just want to go to the question of the states. Now, if we look at hospital funding, what the Gillard Government's doing with this most recent decision is directly funding hospitals and hospital networks. What's your view of that? Peter Dutton: Well, they're not doing that though, Paul. I mean, this is a red herring. The Government is saying out of all the billions of dollars that we give to Victoria, by way of example, we're going to hive off $107 million and give that directly, not because we adhere to that as a good principle, but because we've been caught out snipping money from elsewhere. Paul Kelly: But what's your view of it? Peter Dutton: Well, I think if we can deliver money more efficiently to front-line services we'll do that and I think if we can find ways of essentially creating a competitive tension between health districts or states, then we should do that. If we can reward better ways to deliver health services, we will do that as a Coalition and I make no mistake about pledging that because it's an important productivity gain and a quick one that we can get on the ball. But that's not what the Government's proposing. Paul Kelly: No, sure, but I think that's an important principle because if we look at Gonski we now see, particularly from Victoria, an alternative policy coming forward. The Victorian Government has made it absolutely clear that it has fundamental disagreements with the Gillard Government's view on Gonski. So what's your disposition when it comes to that sort of conflict? Peter Dutton: Well I think again the Liberal Party's philosophy's always been firstly about choice, about providing choice, but also about looking at efficiencies and productivities. Part of the reason that I sought this portfolio out in Opposition was because we need to put health on a sustainable path over the coming decades. If we've got a huge number of people presenting with chronic diseases, we've got huge pressures in terms of technology costs and the rest. We have to make sure that we're spending the dollar more efficiently, and that applies across portfolios and I think that's been a principle that we've been wedded to for a long time. Peter van Onselen:

Australian Agenda

24 February 2013

Peter Dutton

Mr Dutton, one of our viewers on Twitter wants to ask you the question "Are local boards still Liberal policy? Do you intend to maintain activity-based funding?". Peter Dutton: Well, the answer to the second question is yes. And in relation to the first question, the boards operate in a different way across states. In Queensland, for argument's sake, the new Government has established a regional board-type structure. I think they've started off quite successfully, not perfectly, and I think lessons can be learnt. In Victoria it's a more established model which was established under Kennett. So I think some of those are quite effective and I think there are discussions that we can have with other jurisdictions about how again you can more effectively drive the dollar to the front-line service because that's what will get you the patient outcome and that's what we'll continue to do. Simon Benson: Peter, could I ask you about Queensland, if you don't mind me interrupting, and the other favourite topic of the Coalition which is the Labor leadership. There's a recent poll suggesting that if Kevin Rudd was to be drafted in the Labor leadership it would increase the primary vote for Labor in Queensland by 14% which would make them very competitive with Queensland. Is that a problem for Liberals in Queensland - for the LNP in Queensland should Kevin Rudd be drafted? Peter Dutton: Well, I saw the poll and I've read obviously what you've had by way of exclusive content recently, Simon, so it's an interesting dynamic within the party at the moment for the Labor Caucus and that's an issue for them. But what I would say is that on the ground my sense now is that the mood has shifted a little and that is that people see Rudd and Gillard at each other's back. They see Rudd knifing or attempting to knife Gillard the same way that she did to Rudd a couple of years ago. Peter van Onselen: He's ruled out a challenge, in fairness. Peter Dutton: The mood that I get a sense of is that people have sort of drawn a line that it's - they can continue to fight, we just want things settled down. They're worried about cost of living pressures, all of that. So I hope that we can concentrate on issues that are important to people while Labor fights within themselves. Simon Benson: You say it's an issue for Labor Caucus, that is true obviously, but it's also suggested it could be an issue for your party room as well because it changes the dynamic of any campaign that you choose to have against Labor. Obviously you've got one written for you with the attacks by some of Mr Rudd's colleagues last year. But it does change the

Australian Agenda

24 February 2013

Peter Dutton

dynamic and a poll like that suggests that it changes it perhaps significantly in a state like Queensland, your home state. Peter Dutton: Look, I think what people are worried about is cost of living pressures, they're worried about the chaos of the Government, they want to make sure that if they tick the box to say that this mob aren't worthy of ruling anymore, they want to make sure that the Opposition is ready and I do believe that people see us now as a mature alternative, as people with experience, and I think we can get runs on the board pretty quickly if we're elected. Now, the only other point I'd make in relation to Queensland is that I really do think that the poll that would be interesting is whether or not the Labor Caucus could guarantee that if Kevin Rudd was brought back as leader, whether he would serve three years. I don't think Bill Shorten could look down the camera and guarantee the Australian public that Kevin Rudd would stay as Prime Minister for three years. And that's just part of their dilemma and it's an issue for them. Peter van Onselen: Having removed him once, they wouldn't want to have to remove him again, I'm pretty sure of that. Not after what they've gone through since then. Another question on Twitter which I think is a really interesting one, "Will you guarantee current patient access to the abortion pill RU486 will be unchanged if the Liberal Party wins Government?". Now, given some of the issues in relation to this with Tony Abbott that's a fair question. Is that going to be the case? Peter Dutton: The answer is that there will be no change, no plans to change and I think one of the terrible things that the Government's done over the last couple of years is walk away from the independence of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee so essentially they've made a political issue out of the listing of every drug. It has been a very bad precedent for the Government to set and we'll adhere to the independence of that authority. Peter van Onselen: Before we let you go, I wanted to ask you about our coming segment. Now we've got one Green and one Labor candidate. I'd hoped to have one Liberal candidate as well. When I made inquiries about this I was told that Liberal candidates don't do national media. Given that they're running for the national Parliament is that a bit surprising? Peter Dutton: I think the point is that these candidates are working hard in their electorates and I think if you contrast... Peter van Onselen:

Australian Agenda

24 February 2013

Peter Dutton

But the candidates that I contacted were very happy to come on the program. It's just the higher authority within the Liberal Party that wasn't happy to put them up. Peter Dutton: Well... Peter van Onselen: That's sort of stage managed small targetism, isn't it? Peter Dutton: Well it's not, and I think if you look at what candidates are doing on the ground, they're talking to people about issues that are important to them. I know the Greens candidate that you've got at the moment is already a Member of Parliament. The Labor person you've got in no doubt's some hack from central casting that's been a union boss somewhere before. Peter van Onselen: Make sure you don't forget to say goodbye on the way out. Peter Dutton: I'll try and slip discreetly past on the way through. I'm here as a front bencher and I'm happy to talk about issues. Happy to do that on a regular basis. But for candidates in the field, they should be out knocking on doors and they should be talking to people about issues that are important to them and their families. That's what our candidates are doing. I think that's part of the reason that we're in front of Labor at the moment. We've got an enormous amount of talent, as you say, coming into the Parliament and I think people should be out there presenting themselves to local constituents. That's what they're doing. Simon Benson: Peter, it's a criticism that's often made of you as well, that in Parliament you rarely ask questions on health. I can't recall the last - you'll probably pull me up on this but I can't recall the last time I saw you ask a question on health. Peter Dutton: And yet we're ahead in the polls, Simon. You draw whatever conclusion... Peter van Onselen: What are you saying by that? Peter Dutton: ...criticism. Simon Benson:

Australian Agenda

24 February 2013

Peter Dutton

You don't need to. Peter Dutton: Look, I think the - what I've established in this portfolio is that the most important thing is to establish your credentials with the stakeholders. There are an enormous amount of people across health and ageing to get across to talk to. That's been my priority so that we can have good policy during the election. Now, it is hard when five boats are arriving every day. It is hard when the Government is talking about themselves and who's going to be leader and whether Wayne Swan's going to deliver a surplus or not. It's hard to get above all of that. I accept that, and that's a part of being a team player. Simon Benson: The parliamentary reforms, you've got 10 times more questions in Question Time than you did before. Surely it should be easy to get a question up on health. Peter Dutton: Sure, and when you look at the HSU with Craig Thomson, when you look at Julia Gillard's broken promises across a range of portfolios... Simon Benson: That's your party asking questions about issues that you now claim people aren't interested in. Peter Dutton: When you look at the chaos, when you look at the broken promise on the carbon tax, second anniversary today I think since Julia Gillard was standing there with a bearded Rob Oakeshott announcing that she'd introduce a carbon tax, having promised she wouldn't. When they've got the mining tax, all of the pressures that that brings to bear on Australian families, well, they're issues that we talk about in Parliament and we do ask questions, not just of the Health Minister but of the Prime Minister on health. We'll continue to do that and I think we've kept a lot of pressure on them which is why they've fallen back in Newspoll on health and I think we'll continue to apply the pressure to them in the run-up to the election, when we announce good policy. Paul Kelly: If we just go to the question of the Greens and preferences, how deep is the sentiment inside the Liberal Party to preference Labor ahead of the Greens at the coming election? Peter Dutton: Well Paul, our opponent at the election is the Labor Party. The greens are tearing themselves apart and tearing Labor apart and vice versa at the moment. We'll continue to let them do that, particularly in inner city seats. They can fight over those sorts of

Australian Agenda

24 February 2013

Peter Dutton

issues but for us we'll make an announcement particularly around preferences closer. But I think there's enormous turmoil particularly in seats - inner city seats where the Greens and Labor at the moment are at each other's throats and again that's an internal issue for them. Peter van Onselen: But what's your view on it because there is a split view within the Liberal Party. Some people think that the Liberals should preference Labor in these inner city electorates to kill off, if you like, the Greens as a parliamentary force. Others say no, having the Greens in the parliament makes life tough for Labor because it wedges them on the left. I mean, what's your personal view on this? Peter Dutton: Look, I think in terms of tactics that's a question for Brian Loughnane and the leadership group and they'll make those announcements. But I think when we start to get into those debates, from my perspective, we lose sight of what's important for families. Families are worried about cost of living pressures, they're worried about border protection, they're worried about the Prime Minister's lies, and I think if we concentrate on those issues the rest of the tactics will follow and I think we can win the election if we concentrate on the issues that are important for Australian family. Peter van Onselen: Peter Dutton, Shadow Health spokesperson, thanks for joining us on Australian Agenda. Peter Dutton: My pleasure, thank you.

Australian Agenda

24 February 2013

Peter Dutton