|
senate vote 2017-08-10#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-11-03 11:41:19
|
Title
Motions — Suspension of Standing Orders- Motions - Suspension of Standing Orders - Let another vote take place
Description
<p class="speaker">Richard Di Natale</p><p>Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2017-08-10.25.1) to suspend the usual procedural rules - known as standing orders - in order to let [another motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-08-10.29.4) be introduced.
- ### Motion text
- > *That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Di Natale moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion relating to an amendment to Senator Williams's motion on dental services.*
<p class="italic">That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Di Natale moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion relating to an amendment to Senator Williams's motion on dental services.</p><p>It is remarkable, utterly remarkable, that a senator in this chamber would be denied leave to amend a motion put forward by a member of the government. The consistent practice in this place has been to at least give members of this chamber the opportunity to move amendments to the motion, provided they are circulated within good time. And, of course, there's the opportunity for members of the government—and indeed members of the opposition—to not support those amendments. That is accepted current practice in this chamber.</p><p>Senator Williams has decided he wants to move a motion relating to the Australian Dental Association's Dental Health Week. We think that's very important. We think it's absolutely critical that here, in this chamber, we come together and debate what is the appropriate public policy response to improving the oral health of all Australians. Senator Williams is absolutely right: 16 per cent of Australians say they don't visit a dentist because they're too busy. More importantly, close to half of all Australians don't visit a dentist because they cannot afford it. There are 65 per cent of Australians who have not visited the dentist in more than two years, and cost is an enormous factor. That's why the Australian Greens put forward an amendment to the motion proposed by Senator Williams, which reflects the fact that this government cut $300 million a year from the National Partnership Agreement on Adult Public Dental Services, drastically reducing access to dental care for the many millions of Australians who rely on these services. It's absolutely critical, too, to point out to Senator Williams, who's out there championing the government's approach to oral health, that, in fact, what we saw was a cut to the Child Dental Benefits Schedule after this government tried to abolish it altogether.</p><p>One of the things we Greens are very proud of is that, in the term of the Labor government, with the support of the Greens and the Independents, through a process, a significant funding boost to all Australians of over $2 billion for Medicare-funded dental care for children was established. This was a negotiation that we were involved in, a negotiation that had our strong backing, and it meant that, for the first time ever, we had Medicare-funded dental care offered to Australians in this country. For the first time ever a young person could go to the dentist and get that service provided using their Medicare card, because we've always said that Australians should be able to go and see the dentist in the same way as they are able to go and see a doctor.</p><p>Our view is that we should have a universal dental system. Yet we saw this government try on numerous occasions to abolish that scheme altogether and say to young people within the community, 'You can't access Medicare-funded dental care.' When they realised they couldn't get that through the parliament, they dishonestly took all the information off their own website and tried to pretend to the Australian community that they could no longer access those services. Time and time again through Senate estimates we asked the department why they were giving false information about the closure of that scheme, and the information we were given was that it was because the government's intention was to close it, despite not having the support of the Senate. Then, last year, the government said it would cut the $1,000 cap by $300 and make it a $700 cap. It failed in its attempt to do this on many occasions. This is an appalling attempt from this government to hide a record on oral health that it should be absolutely ashamed of. When you consider the increase in public dental waiting lists because of the cut to the national partnership agreement, tens of thousands of Australians now have to wait for months and sometimes years to get basic treatment: fillings, dentures and other preventive treatment.</p><p>Senator Williams, rather than denying this chamber the opportunity to vote on an amendment to your motion and have it put on the public record, rather than using process to stymy a debate, you should have the guts to allow us to do our job. You should make sure that your record is highlighted.</p> <p class="speaker">Gavin Marshall</p><p>Senator Di Natale, I remind you to make your comments to the chair.</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Di Natale</p><p>Through you, Madam Deputy President, Senator Williams should have the courage and the guts to stand by a record which he has no right to stand by because it is utterly shameful.</p> <p class="speaker">John Williams</p><p>I'll put my two bobs worth into this debate. The fact is the amendment put forward by the Greens is wrong. It is false. It is misleading. It says the Australian Government has cut the Child Dental Benefits Scheme by $300 per child, but in February this year the $1,000 cap was put back. What you're saying has been reversed. It is wrong. You are misleading the chamber with that, and that's why I won't support it and why I denied you leave.</p><p>Crocodile tears are being cried by the Greens and some of those opposite. Let me take you back to the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. When I first came to this place in 2008, a scheme put forward by the Howard government was providing up to $1 billion a year. For who? The elderly and those with limited finances. All they required was a referral from a GP and they could have up to $4,250 of dental work carried out. Who wanted to axe it? The Labor Party, when it was in government, and the Greens—joined, as they are, at the hip—back in 2008-09 tried to axe that program so that pensioners, the very poor and elderly who needed serious work done on their teeth could not have it carried out. Benefits were available for a comprehensive range of dental services. The Chronic Disease Dental Scheme was spending $1 billion dollars a year by the time it was closed. When was it closed? Perhaps Senator Di Natale might answer the question. It was closed by the Gillard government in 2012. Who was in a written coalition with the Gillard government then? The Greens. You cut down a $1 billion program!</p><p>As I said, I denied leave for this reason: the amendment you have circulated in the chamber is wrong. To say the Child Dental Benefits Scheme has been cut by $300 per child is wrong. The benefits cap was reinstated in February this year. Senator Di Natale is wrong. You shouldn't say things that are simply wrong. Your amendment to my motion is wrong and misleading. The $1,000 cap was reinstated in February this year, and that is a fact.</p><p class="italic">Senator Di Natale interjecting—</p><p>You can give it, Senator Di Natale, but you don't like taking it.</p> <p class="speaker">Gavin Marshall</p><p>Senator Williams, resume your seat for a moment. I would ask senators to listen in silence while a senator is making his contribution.</p> <p class="speaker">John Williams</p><p>As I said, I denied leave for that reason: it is false; it is misleading; it is incorrect—and I don't think those things should be put before this chamber. The history of the Greens in government with the Labor Party, cutting a $1 billion scheme to help our elderly, our frail and our poor was a disgrace. Hence, I stand by the motion I put forward.</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>I won't take up too much time. The opposition will be supporting the suspension of standing orders.</p> <p class="speaker">John Williams</p><p>Of course you will, you're joined at the hip.</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>Senator Williams—through you, Chair—the points you make can be dealt with by the government opposing the amendment. All that has been achieved this morning is that we have had a much longer debate on this and Senator Di Natale has been able to put a comprehensive record of criticism against the cuts the government have made in much greater detail than would have been allowed had you allowed this amendment to be heard and dealt with procedurally. On the procedural matter, aside from policy matters here, the amendment was circulated. The chamber operates through relationships. If Senator Williams had those concerns, I think he could have raised them prior to stopping this amendment being put in the first place. But we'll certainly be supporting the Greens with the suspension of standing orders.</p> <p class="speaker">Gavin Marshall</p><p>The question is that the motion moved by Senator Di Natale, No. 4 on page 29, to suspend standing orders be agreed to.</p> -
-
|