Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for that reminder. It is very important, because the point I am making is that the ability to maximise the use of this technology cannot be achieved when there is not actually high-speed broadband. In some parts of the country, there are hospitals, for example, that can talk to each other because they have those connections between the hospitals. In Tasmania, for example, they do have a good system, but they do not necessarily have it connecting adequately to the rest of the country, so that the place to where they want to send some material does not have the speed to make the transmission effective.

We know that teleradiology—that is, electronically transmitting radiographic patient images and consultative text from one location to another—is already being utilised in Australia, but enhanced broadband technology provides the key to significantly expanding these services. Given we know that there is a national shortage of radiologists—another area given insufficient attention by this minister—expanding the use of tele-radiology could also be the focus of the next radiology MOU.

When we are seeing reports such as the one that appeared in the Hobart Mercury on 29 March 2007 that Tasmanian women are waiting weeks for the results of breast screening mammograms that are being sent to New South Wales to be read, we can see the advantages of technology that would allow digital images to be transmitted and viewed instantaneously between surgeries and clinics and between hospitals—or, in this case, between specialists in different states.

As I said, the proposed start date for the accreditation scheme is 1 July 2008, so this gives plenty of time for these sorts of issues to be explored properly for the new MOU and for it to tie in with the accreditation scheme. The introduction date of the accreditation scheme was postponed from 1 September 2007 after concerns were expressed by stakeholders.

We retain concerns that the proposed scheme will not be ready to commence in July next year. The government has failed to provide sufficient detail about how this scheme will operate. Obviously, if it acts very fast, there may still be time, and we hope there will be. But this bill does not provide the operational details of the proposed scheme, such as the standards to be used, the names of the approved accreditors, the accreditation process and the period of accreditation. Rather, it simply allows, as I have already highlighted, the minister to establish through the regulations the rules and operational details of the scheme.

While we recognise sector support for the introduction of the scheme, we note that representatives of the diagnostic imaging sector have also previously raised concerns relating to these operational details, and we share those concerns that the full policy implications are yet to be announced and are not apparent from this bill.

We are also critical that the full costings for the introduction of the accreditation scheme are yet to be determined. According to the explanatory memorandum to the bill, the introduction of the accreditation scheme will require enhancements to Medicare Australia’s processing systems. The costs have yet to be quantified but are estimated to be around $1.2 million, based on previous similar policies.

According to the explanatory memorandum, these full costings will be provided when the subordinate legislation is developed. It is expected that these costs will be funded from existing budgetary measures for the provision of diagnostic imaging services, but we will have to wait until the government provides us with this information. Unfortunately, this is typical of the lack of detail and slightly shabby approach that we are seeing on health. We hope that the government will allocate the requisite resources to get this accreditation process sorted out and off the ground in time for the 1 July deadline next year. We look forward to receiving more detail in due course. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context