Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Private Health Insurance Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2014 . The bill transfers the functions of the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman to the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

I want to say that, from the outset, as has always been the case with the opposition we will work with government to support measures that are sensible and in the best long-term interests of the Australian public. It is worth making the point, however, that as has consistently been the case with this government, there is a decided lack of detail and clarity on just what the impact of its decisions are, and what the precise reasons for them are. We have seen this from the moment the government came to office. It was crystallised in the 2014 budget, which was littered with broken promises and ill-thought-out schemes, many of which are still even to come before the parliament—even as the Treasurer attempts to frame his 2015 budget.

That chaos and dysfunction continues to this day. In the health area alone, the government is now working on its fourth version of its GP tax—still with $1.3 billion worth of cuts on the table. It is still unable to get its PBS price hike through the Senate. Medicare Locals are due to wind up in June with still no word on who will replace them and what will happen to the hundreds of workers who are waiting to find out whether they still have a job. There are literally hundreds of health organisations in the areas of substance abuse and workforce information services that are left hanging—they do not know whether they are going to exist beyond June.

This bill forms part of the chaotic and unfair budget. In the budget, this component of it is the smaller-government additional reductions in the number of Australian government bodies measures, which largely had its genesis out of Commission of Audit, and there are some very illogical claims that were made in the Commission of Audit. One of those that we have already signalled we will be opposing is the merger between the National Blood Authority and the Organ and Tissue Donation Authority, because we think it seriously has the potential to jeopardise organ and tissue donation rates in this country. We have not seen the legislation for that, but I will flag that.

This merger is yet another one of the mergers that was mentioned. Of course, it sounds reasonable when you frame in the way that you want to slash red-tape, have smaller government and less bureaucracy. But, unfortunately, when the rubber hits the road, what we actually see are services slashed, checks and balances removed, and consumer protections downgraded. The Office of the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman and the Commonwealth Ombudsman both have the deep respect of the opposition. Both are independent organisations protecting consumers, and we make no criticism of the dedicated people who work in these organisations for the public good.

As much as we respect the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, there clearly comes a point when, if that office is overloaded and given too much to do, it cannot deliver the best outcomes for the public. It is about to be asked to take on a very significant role in relation to the new metadata legislation. The Commonwealth ombudsman is, of course, the Defence Force ombudsman; the immigration ombudsman; law enforcement ombudsman; taxation ombudsman; postal industry ombudsman; ACT ombudsman; and overseas students ombudsman. It is abundantly clear that a single organisation trying to cover all of the bases with fewer resources cannot be as effective a voice as an organisation solely dedicated to looking after the rights of looking after health insurance fund members—an incredibly complex area of health policy. I request leave to continue my remarks at a later time.

Debate interrupted.

See this speech in context