MONDAY’S Q&A panellists had plenty to fire them up, with questions on union corruption, asylum seekers and the likeliness of tax reform dominating the floor.

But it was a cheekily-phrased question from a woman who had suffered a serious car accident that ended up incensing the panel.

“Our public hospital system is broken and it’s getting worse,” she said. “Knowing that nothing will get done while our politicians are able to bypass the mess of public hospitals and go to wonderful private hospitals for their own health treatment, I would like to propose that politicians cannot use private health care while in office.

“In fact, I would love to see them on waiting lists for three years long and in hospitals where the toilet and wards are filthy and even privacy curtains are in short supply.

“My question is this: Would you agree to use the public health system while in office?”

Her question received strong applause from the audience.

So, would our pollies be willing to go off private health insurance, and brave public hospitals? Shadow Health Minister Catherine King praised our public hospital system, saying she used her electorate’s public hospital when she gave birth to her children. She said Labor came up with agreements with the states and territories, and that when the Liberal government came to power, they refused to honour those agreements, in favour of funding hospitals according to a “lesser formula”.

“Seven billion is being cut from our public hospital system. That is what the government has decided to do. Now that is clearly not sustainable. We have got a growing demand in our public hospitals.

“The government has got itself in a right mess when it comes to health policy. You are right — our public hospitals should be not just a safety net, but the best part of our hospital system as they can be.”

Rural Health Minister Fiona Nash responded saying: “Our public hospitals out in rural and regional areas where I am are by and large fantastic and I get really sick and tired of people running down our hospitals and doctors and nurses to work in the regional rural areas.”

She also acknowledged that in some rural and regional areas, private hospitals aren’t really an option.

“Does she want me to go off private health insurance while I’m in parliament? Sure.”

She then fired back at Catherine’s initial response, saying: “You can’t cut something that never existed. Labor’s promising about this funding were far away imaginary promises.

“They were never budgeted for, they were never funded. We are increasing hospital funding by $21 — by 21.5% over the next 4 years, $3.3 billion. It is increasing, and I get a bit tired of Labor’s scare tactics talking about us cutting something that never actually existed.”

As tensions flared between the two Health Ministers, both were interrupted by Neil Mitchell, who said to the questioner: “They’re arguing over your health. This is the obscenity of it. This is what matters, not this political game-playing! It’s people’s health!”

The original questioner soon hit back at Fiona Nash, saying: “I would invite you, Fiona to join me in a little visit to Melbourne, to Footscray Hospital, Sunshine Hospital, come with me and I’ll show you the areas that I mean, not the nicely cleaned up ones that you see.” She was once again applauded by the audience.

Perhaps redirecting private health subsidies back to the public system would be a good start. #qanda — Eddy Jokovich (@EddyJokovich) February 8, 2016

Get rid of all private hospitals and put money into the public system. Good health care is a universal right! #qanda — Jennifer Brown (@urallagirl) February 8, 2016

Public hospitals first. Plain and simple. #qanda — Stephen (@TheAviator1992) February 8, 2016

On a separate issue, the GST came up in tonight’s debate — a predictable point following Malcolm Turnbull’s recent remarks on Insiders about the unlikeliness of GST hike.

So has Malcolm Turnbull officially killed off the GST rise, or not?

Fiona Nash said: “The Prime Minister has indicated he is yet to be convinced by some of the options on the table, and we will continue to discuss it with the Australian people, with the economists, with people in the community and among both sides of politics.”

When Tony Jones asked her to clarify whether or not it had been ruled out, she responded: “He said the evidence wasn’t in. So we are still clearly looking at all the options, but it’s about getting jobs.”

Grace Collier, a columnist at The Australian, said: “There is massive government waste. Everywhere you look there is just fat to be cut. We have so much fat we could start our own obesity clinic.

“I used to work in cost-cutting and we used to handle distressed businesses that were on the verge of bankruptcy and the first thing that management would do is stand up and say, “We are taking a 10 per cent cut to our salaries and everybody else has to take a cut, too.” You have to lead by example. I would like to see the politicians taking a massive cut on their own entitlements, not doing any more of these silly overseas tours which we know are just a rort and leading by example. They can tighten their belts, give away their conditions and then ask the rest of us to do so with a little bit of moral authority.”

On a more emotive subject, one questioner referred to Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews’ open letter to the Prime Minister on taking 267 asylum seekers at risk of being returned to Nauru. She said: “When both politicians and the public are opposed to returning (asylum seekers) to Nauru, why is the federal Government refusing to listen to the electorate?”

Q&A: Nauru Why is the federal govt refusing to listen to politicians & the public opposed to returning people to Nauru?

Her question produced a mixed response from the panel. Neil Mitchell described the Premier’s letter as a “stunt”, saying “he knows it can’t and won’t happen”.

“I’ve never seen so much misinformation on this issue. $100 million a year, I think, is the estimate it’s costing in welfare payments for refugees. 97 per cent unemployment rate.

“I don’t think there is an option other than to send the children back,” he said, which prompted audible disbelief from audience members. “It’s horrible, but I can’t see another option.”

Catherine King said that politicians need to start engaging properly with the UNHCR, and that she stands by Australia’s current policy settings, “as difficult as that is”.

Fiona Nash said: “We have now a situation where we have put the people smugglers out of business. So that means, because of that we can now bring in the 12,000 Syrian refugees because we’ve done that.

“There are 1992 children in detention in 2013. Now there are 75. It’s still too many. Our aim is to have none and that’s what we will continue to work towards.”

Dave Oliver had a particularly heartfelt response to this question, saying that as a father, he would not be able to send a child back.

“Could I take the hand of a child and put him on a plane to send them back to Nauru? I couldn’t, and I couldn’t expect anyone else to do that.

“They are here. They are here now, and we have a decision either to look after them or take children and put them in an area where they will be vulnerable. And I can’t accept that. I can’t accept that under any circumstance.”

Originally published as Cheeky question riles Q&A panel