Defence Portfolio
Dr SCAMPS (Mackellar) (19:01): I am grateful for the opportunity speak in consideration in detail stage of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2026-2027, specifically regarding the health, disability and ageing portfolio. Today I would like to focus particularly on health expenditure. The aim of this funding, as Budget Paper No. 4 states, is to: Better equip Australia to meet current and future health needs … through … evidence-based health policies; improved access to … health care; … protecting the health and safety of the … community I welcome the much needed investments in the budget for public hospitals, for cheaper medicines, for urgent care clinics and for health and medical research.
But in this budget there is also a missed opportunity to invest in common sense, evidence based prevention policies that would improve the health and wellbeing of Australians, save lives, reduce pressure on hospitals and generate billions in savings. Australia is still fundamentally a treatment focused system. Most health funding is spent after people get sick.
Hospitals and Medicare dominate spending, while prevention remains only a fraction of total health expenditure. Yet every dollar invested in prevention yields $14.30 in healthcare savings and broader economic benefits. Despite this, Australia only invests around two per cent of its health budget in prevention, significantly less than comparable countries like the UK and Canada.
And we know the consequences. Around 6.4 million hospitalisations each year, or 55 per cent of total, are due to chronic diseases—costing about $82 billion annually. Half of these are preventable.
It is estimated that lost labour force participation from chronic disease will cost the economy more than $67 billion by 2030. Commonwealth health spending is projected to rise from 4.2 per cent of GDP in 2022-23 to 6.2 per cent in 2062-63, so why are we not seriously investing in chronic disease prevention measures? Modelling from 2018 suggests that banning junk food advertising on TV between 6 am and 9.30 pm could generate $778 million in healthcare savings over the lifetime of the 2010 Australian population.
The Australian Medical Association's modelling suggests a 20 per cent reformulation levy on sugar-sweetened beverages could raise $4 billion over four years. This could be invested into preventative health or other government services like education or disability supports. The UK introduced their so-called industry levy on sugar-sweetened beverages in 2018, and, importantly, the revenue raised from that levy goes to fund school sports programs.
Australia is lagging behind on these policies. More than 130 countries around the world have adopted levies on sugar sweetened beverages, and over 40 countries already regulate junk food advertising. As a result, these countries are seeing improved public health, including reduced obesity rates and decreased hospital visits.
A well-designed gambling profits levy would also generate billions from the large profits of the gambling industry. Remember, the Murphy report recommended that we view the harms coming from gambling as a public health issue. These funds could be directed into public health campaigns, community support services, mental health care and addiction treatment.
Reforming the wine equalisation tax into a volumetric tax model is sound tax policy that could reduce alcohol related harm. The Productivity Commission has called for a national prevention and early intervention framework. Its chair called for this budget to commit $1.5 billion in evidence-backed preventive interventions, alongside a national partnership agreement to support intergovernmental collaboration.
Too often, prevention misses out because budget and political cycles favour short-term pay-offs over long-term gains, but the stark reality is this: we cannot fund our way out of the growing demand without preventing illness in the first place. So I asked the minister: if prevention saves lives, reduces hospitalisation and delivers strong returns, when will the government adopt these revenue-generating and budget-saving measures, and will the government commit to a dedicated national prevention and early intervention framework?