Division
Jan McLucas I rise to speak on the Health Workforce Australia (Abolition) Bill and I want to indicate that the Labor Party will be opposing this bill. In the explanatory memorandum of this bill, it describes the purpose of the bill: It will enable more efficient and effective delivery of policy and programme activities related to the health workforce, to ensure Australia continues to have a high quality, capable and well distributed health workforce, delivering frontline health services for all Australians. That is simply not true. The word that I am offended by is the word 'continues'. We do not have a 'high-quality, capable and well-distributed health workforce' in this country. We do have a high-quality and capable health workforce, but frankly it has never been well distributed; that was why Labor in government established Health Workforce Australia. We received no substantial evidence at the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry that would support the contention that was included in the explanatory memorandum. In fact, the overwhelming evidence points to the success of Health Workforce Australia and its success into the future. Many witnesses who came before our committee said that the work had not yet been completed. So Labor will oppose this bill here in the Senate. In saying that, can I say that the motivation from the government is purely political and frankly spiteful. Labor established Health Workforce Australia through legislation in May 2009. This was partly in response to a Productivity Commission inquiry that was established in 2006. That was before Labor came to government, so the current government knows well and truly that our country has a problem in the distribution of our workforce. The Productivity Commission concluded that a more sustainable and responsive health workforce was needed. The report went further and highlighted the complexity of Australia's health workforce arrangements—the numerous organisations and agencies invo
Senate, 2014-09-22. affirmative: ayes 32, noes 29.
Question
Jan McLucas I rise to speak on the Health Workforce Australia (Abolition) Bill and I want to indicate that the Labor Party will be opposing this bill. In the explanatory memorandum of this bill, it describes the purpose of the bill: It will enable more efficient and effective delivery of policy and programme activities related to the health workforce, to ensure Australia continues to have a high quality, capable and well distributed health workforce, delivering frontline health services for all Australians. That is simply not true. The word that I am offended by is the word 'continues'. We do not have a 'high-quality, capable and well-distributed health workforce' in this country. We do have a high-quality and capable health workforce, but frankly it has never been well distributed; that was why Labor in government established Health Workforce Australia. We received no substantial evidence at the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry that would support the contention that was included in the explanatory memorandum. In fact, the overwhelming evidence points to the success of Health Workforce Australia and its success into the future. Many witnesses who came before our committee said that the work had not yet been completed. So Labor will oppose this bill here in the Senate. In saying that, can I say that the motivation from the government is purely political and frankly spiteful. Labor established Health Workforce Australia through legislation in May 2009. This was partly in response to a Productivity Commission inquiry that was established in 2006. That was before Labor came to government, so the current government knows well and truly that our country has a problem in the distribution of our workforce. The Productivity Commission concluded that a more sustainable and responsive health workforce was needed. The report went further and highlighted the complexity of Australia's health workforce arrangements—the numerous organisations and agencies invo
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.