Patient Assistance Transport Scheme - Motion
Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (12:34): I, too, rise to speak on this important motion that the member for Frome has brought forward. I also am pleased to follow the member for Morphett who, leading to the last state election, was the opposition's shadow spokesperson for health and one of the key people involved in our policy that would have put an additional $4 million over this term—a $1 million a year extra—into PATS if we had been elected. While I understand exactly why the member for Frome is bringing this forward, it is a bit unfortunate that he even needs to bring it forward because, if we happened to be in government at the moment, it would have already been taken care of. This is a very important issue.
Health issues are indiscriminate in regard to who they affect. It does not matter whether you are male or female, young or old, wealthy or poor, Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal, whatever you like. Unfortunately, you can be faced with very difficult health issues. If you happen to live away from specialist care that is necessary to treat those health issues, then you are disadvantaged, and the heart of the PATS scheme is to try to contribute to reducing that disadvantage. It is an exceptionally important scheme to people in regional South Australia because there are none of us who have not either been affected with poor health requiring specialist treatment ourselves or who do not have close friends or family members in exactly that situation, and then we are affected indirectly but very meaningfully.
In regard to this motion, as members would know, there is also an inquiry looking into this issue at the moment and I, like some of my colleagues, have already made a submission to that inquiry. I also ask the house to consider a speech that I made here on 22 July 2010 on exactly this matter. This is a very important issue affecting the people of Stuart and other country areas of the state. I will not go over all the things in my submission and all the things that I said back in July 2010 because they are already on the record. Unfortunately, they have not been addressed yet by this government. They have not changed.
One thing that has changed, though, is that the government has directed the officers who oversee the payment of money to patients under the PAT Scheme not to reimburse expenses for accommodation for a carer accompanying a patient to hospital in a situation when the patient is in hospital for a few days, the carer has to come down to look after that person but, of course, the carer needs accommodation outside of hospital. The government has directed the people who oversee the PAT Scheme not to reimburse the carer's accommodation, even when the medical specialist has requested that the carer accompanies the patient.
Even when it is in writing that the medical specialist has said, 'I know you will be in hospital and I know your carer will spend most of his or her time with you in hospital but will have to stay overnight somewhere else, I would still like them to come and accompany you,' the government has said, 'Do not reimburse that carer's accommodation.' That is a change the government has made in the last few years, and that is a very unfortunate change.
Country people appreciate the support they get, but let's be quite clear: $30 does not go very far for a night's accommodation in Adelaide. Even for the cheapest budget accommodation you can find it does not go very far, but country people still appreciate some contribution compared to what may be two or three times that in a really stock standard motel.
Country people really do appreciate the 16¢ they get per kilometre contribution to their travelling cost, even though anybody doing it for business (including any government employees who might happen to use their personal car for work use) will actually be reimbursed by the ATO at 72¢ or 73¢ a kilometre They still appreciate the fact that they are getting a 16¢ contribution. They are glad to get whatever they can get towards the cost that the household is incurring when they have a seriously sick person.
What this is all about at the moment is the fact that it has not increased at all. It is an unacceptably low contribution, as costs have gone up and up, particularly fuel costs for country people. You get an advantage when you drive down to Adelaide in that you can fill up on some cheaper fuel, but you have to fill up at home before you go. The cost of country fuel has gone up enormously in the last few years. The cost of city fuel has gone up as well, but not to the same extent. People really do need this support.
3
I think it is also very important to consider what other areas of care PATS might be able to cover that it does not cover at the moment. I would suggest that the cost of dental care should be considered, not necessarily specialist, high level care as it applies via specialist treatment to medical care, but I think it would be very worthwhile for the government to consider whether if you live more than 100 kilometres away from a practising dentist that perhaps you could access some PATS support so that you can get to your regular dental check-ups, because we all know that if you do not get to your regular dental check-ups your dental health will deteriorate significantly and that will have a very significant impact on your health more broadly.
We now know that there is a very strong link between dental health and heart disease, and that is a concerning issue—alarming, surprising, I would not have guessed it, but it is true. So, I think that is a very important thing that the government could consider. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who, if they live more than 100 kilometres away from a dental practice, just will not go. That is particularly concerning when it comes to their kids. If they do not have regular check-ups for their kids' dental health then those kids are quite likely to be set up for poor health in a wide range of ways throughout the rest of their lives. So, I would like the government, as part of this review, to consider that very seriously.
I am also reminded of the fact that two years ago the government guaranteed me and guaranteed this house that it would do a complete review of country health via the Social Development Committee, a standing committee of parliament. It has not honoured that commitment. It is exceptionally disappointing that that has not been honoured because this exact issue could have been dealt with two years ago if it had kept that commitment.
Minister Hill (at the time) said that he was more than happy to do it. In fact, we actually sat down together and developed the terms of reference—I put some draft terms of reference to him, he made some suggested changes, which I agreed to, both our parties agreed to them, we put it forward and he said, 'I have no fear of this country health inquiry,' and yet the government has not honoured that commitment.
So, I guess I am very cautious when I deal with the government on country health issues. I am pleased that the inquiry into PATS has been established. I have put a submission on behalf of the people of Stuart to Dr Filby, who is undertaking the inquiry. I encourage all members of parliament with an interest in country matters and in health in general to put a submission forward to that inquiry, because it is a very important issue.
This is not an issue of choice. This is not about: do you want to come down to Adelaide to see a Crows or Port Adelaide football match? This is not about: is there a test on? Would you like to come down? Can you afford it? Have you got friends to stay with? This is about your health. This is about specialist health. This is about a necessity to see a specialist more than 100 kilometres away from where you live, who typically is in Adelaide. It is about the fact that you cannot avoid it. It is about the fact that you may be any person from any walk of life in country South Australia and need to do that. It is about people getting a fair contribution from the government towards the costs they incur when they do that. I wholeheartedly support the fact that the upper house has established this committee, and I wholeheartedly urge the government to take this issue very seriously.
Comment