Dr WEBSTER (Mallee) (18:41): Regional health equity is just not front of mind for this Labor government. Unsurprisingly, there were no significant new measures for regional health in the 2026-27 budget. This government continues to invest in its pet projects that are not fit for purpose in the regions, like urgent care clinics. Urgent care clinics are city-centric with large throughput models as their basis and very expensive at $216 per visit, compared to just $42.85 for a level B GP consultation. They also take GPs away from regional clinics into urgent care clinics. It makes no sense. It is not increasing the workforce. It is not solving the actual problems that we have.

On that note, where is the mapping to demonstrate the government's claim that, soon, four out of five Australians will live within 20 minutes drive of a Medicare urgent care clinic? Where is the map—

Ms Price interjecting—

Dr WEBSTER: of approximately 5.6 million Australians not able to access a UCC? Member for Durack, I hear what you're saying, and it is very true across Mallee, bar one town.

In this budget, public hospital funding was increased by $25 billion over five years. How much of that will go to the regions? I'd love to know, and that is my question to the minister, but I doubt that there will be an equitable share for the 25 per cent of people who live out in the regions. Hospitals in the regions continue to struggle to recruit and retain the medical, nursing and allied health workforce they need to provide care close to home. This frequently results in rural people travelling vast distances to access care in cities or large regional centres. Yet state based travel reimbursement schemes like the Victorian Patient Transport Assistance Scheme, VPTAS, have for many years been criticised for being woefully inadequate in their support of rural patients travelling to access care. And guess what the Victorian Labor government have done to that scheme. They've cut it again. So, for the people who live six hours away by road: 'Well, too bad! If you're 80 and you're sick, you're just going to have to get in a car and travel along those awfully bumpy roads to get to Melbourne to get the care.' It is an outrage that the Labor government does not give any respect or dignity to those who live in the regions—and it is on repeat.

Labor is all talk and no action when it comes to delivering outcomes for regional Australians. The National Health Reform Agreement's addendum 'Schedule F—better health equity for rural and remote communities' is a first. It is a step in the right direction, but if the government is serious about improving health equity for rural, regional and remote Australians why doesn't the new agreement include clear KPIs to that effect? So much for transparency!

How does the government intend to measure performance against the high-level commitments and principles contained in schedule F, if at all? Does anyone really think that the states and territories will deliver just because there are a few principles included in a document? I don't think so. Not only are there no performance measures; there is no funding attached to the schedule. Truly, it makes my head hurt. It actually makes my heart hurt for all the people who live in regional and rural Australia and who are being done over by Labor governments who do not give a rat's for their existence, their wellbeing, their health and their quality of life. It is honestly outrageous, and this schedule is another virtue signal.

One hundred additional Commonwealth supported places were allocated in last year's budget to train doctors, with the intention to increase the likelihood that graduates will work in primary care in rural, regional and underserved metropolitan areas in particular, yet there was no tangible objective mechanism to ensure universities recruited rural students or programs to align with the evidence base and deliver end-to-end training in truly rural locations. In the same vein, the 2025-26 budget expanded GP training, and while the data shows that GPs are in shorter supply in rural and remote, MM 5 to 7, areas—shock horror!—no training places were allocated to the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine. What is that about?

‍