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

in reply—I thank all of the members who have spoken and contributed on the Health Insurance Amendment (Diagnostic Imaging Accreditation) Bill 2009, particularly the last two speakers. I will address briefly the comments that have been made. I know that the member for Chifley has been a very staunch advocate of an MRI licence being provided at Mount Druitt Hospital. He never fails to take the opportunity to raise it with me—and, as a good member committed to his local area, it is his job to do that. I think he and the hospital at Mount Druitt are building a very significant case for why the changed structure that is being introduced in the region would mean that an MRI could be well utilised. But he also rightly points out what I have said to him and many other members: there is not a national process for the automatic allocation of MRI licences based on population or an automatic process where, if a machine is purchased, it will be recognised in a particular way. There is a fair amount of fairly ugly political history from the previous government, which is the reason that there is not a system in place, but obviously we are keen to make sure that we look at needs very carefully. If there are changing structures or demands, we are always interested in seeing if there is a way that we can assist members on both sides of the House.

That is why I am particularly interested, before I give a short summing up speech on this bill, in addressing the issues that have been raised by the member for Grey, who is indeed also a very difficult situation, as we believe we are as well in these circumstances, where a commitment was made to deliver an MRI licence. A tender process was undertaken. That tender process did not present an application that met all of the requirements. I listened very carefully to the member’s presentation because I know that he is genuinely committed to trying to make sure better services can be provided in Port Augusta. Unlike the situation that you are in when you run a tender process as a minister, we are not the assessors of the applications. There is an arm’s-length process. It is undertaken very carefully and there are very strict regulations for how it is done. Of course it is proper that I would act on the advice, and I am concerned—and we have had a number of discussions and correspondences, some of which were read into the House—that that leaves both the local member and the community frustrated that an opportunity may have been missed.

From our early contacts, I asked my department to go back and reassess the process. They have still advised me that none of the applications meet the requirements, and the most recent letter I wrote to the member was to say that we acknowledge that, if an appropriate tender had been available, it would have had a cost impact. That is fine. That is something we were committed to doing. Given that there has not been, did the member want to be involved in identifying other health projects of an equivalent value that can be of benefit to Port Augusta? It is absolutely a matter for the member for Grey whether he wants to be engaged in that process or not.

I do take exception to the allegation that this is somehow being used politically. I do not think it is the behaviour of a government or a minister that is behaving politically to write to a member of the opposition and say, ‘We are interested in your views on whether money can be spent locally on health for the benefit of your community.’ I can assure the member for Grey that, despite his queries and worries that something nefarious is occurring with the South Australian government, the South Australian government do not participate in the tender process, they are not part of the tender panel and they have no capacity or ability to interfere in that process. But in the situation we are now in—where we have money that we were prepared to spend in Port Augusta on an MRI machine and no successful tenderer to be able to pay that to—we are wanting to engage with the local member and the state health services to gather information for any existing projects.

I can also assure the member that he is not the only member who has been in this position. In fact, a very similar situation occurred in the seat of Braddon. A commitment had been made for an MRI service to be provided in Burnie, and a similar negotiation process—when there were no successful tenderers—was gone through with the member for Braddon. Discussions were had with the local health community as well as with the Tasmanian government about whether there were any options for providing additional health services. That was also not an easy thing for the community, but I think we ended up with quite a good resolution.

Of course, if the member for Grey tells me that he does not want this money to be invested in health services in his area, he is more than welcome to stand up and say that. In the absence of him telling me that, I look forward to a reply to the letter, which was quoted extensively, for any ideas or views that he has. It is tempting as a minister, when you hear these very heartfelt pleas, to again ask my department to go back and see if there is anything in the tender process that should be revisited, but I am very wary of doing that, having already been down that path once and assured again that there is no appropriate tender application that could be awarded.

I look forward to having future discussions. I can assure the member for Grey that there is nothing mysterious or political going on. We have been open with him and quite encouraging of him to be involved in this process, and I hope he will take that opportunity. It is a very legitimate consideration for Australians, no matter where they live, to want to be able to access decent health services—and MRI processes are becoming much more common. We are interested in doing all we can to make sure that, where there is a viable option, we would help establish these services. So I am sure there are going to be many other discussions, and I hope that we can continue to work with the member for Grey to find a resolution for Port Augusta and the surrounds. This bill does not actually deal directly with those issues raised by local members, but it is a good opportunity to put those issues on the record. A number of other members took the opportunity to raise similar issues in their local areas and of course the government takes note of those issues.

On behalf of the government, I would like to acknowledge the opposition’s support for the Health Insurance Amendment (Diagnostic Imaging Accreditation) Bill 2009. It amends the accreditation act of 2007 to broaden the scope of the Diagnostic Imaging Accreditation Scheme. The bill establishes transitional arrangements for existing diagnostic practices providing non-radiology services or a combination of non-radiology and radiology services not accredited under the scheme to enter stage 2 of the scheme from 1 July 2010. These arrangements will enable non-radiology practices to transit into stage 2 of the scheme, with minimal disruption to the business of providing Medicare eligible diagnostic imaging services to patients. Through the implementation of the stage 2 scheme, the government and community can be assured that the 19.5 million or so diagnostic imaging services that are supported by Medicare annually are being provided by organisations that are able to meet specified standards and that taxpayer funded investment in those services totalling over $2.2 billion per year is being used effectively.

The government acknowledges that the success of the stage 2 scheme is dependent on the support of stakeholders. I would like to assure members, particularly those who raised this issue in the House, that the stage 2 scheme model has been developed and informed by an evaluation of the stage 1 scheme undertaken in 2009. The results of this evaluation will be released publicly soon. It is the government’s intention to ensure that the stage 2 scheme remains practical and affordable, by continuing to monitor and evaluate the scheme and, in the future, by conducting a review of the scheme. I am happy to confirm for the member for Boothby that the findings from that review will be made publicly available.

On behalf of the government, I restate our appreciation for the collaboration of all the affected medical groups that have enabled the government to reach agreement on the proposal to provide transitional arrangements and to enable the structure of the accreditation regime to cover all diagnostic imaging services. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

See this speech in context