Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and move government amendments (1) and (2), as circulated, together:

(1)    Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3), omit “item 4”, substitute “items 4 to 4B”.

(2)    Schedule 1, Part 1, page 3 (after line 18), at the end of the Part, add:

4A  Subsection 270-45(4)

Omit “The ^*member”, substitute “Unless the Minister or the Council otherwise determines, the ^*member”.

4B  At the end of section 270-45

Add:

        (5)    For the purposes of the Council making a determination under subsection (4) in relation to a ^*member who has made a disclosure under subsection (1), a member who has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the matter to which the disclosure relates must not:

             (a)    be present during any deliberations of Council for the purposes of making the determination; or

             (b)    take part in the making by the Council of the determination.

These amendments amend the bill to include an amendment to section 270-45 of the Private Health Insurance Act dealing with conflicts of interest of members of the Private Health Insurance Administration Council. The section presently provides that any direct or indirect pecuniary interest of a council member, however minor, must be disclosed and disqualifies council members from participating in related discussions or decisions. This has emerged as an issue because half of the current council members are covered by the same private health insurer, and application of the section in its current form would limit the council’s consideration of that insurer’s affair. The amendment will provide that, if a member does disclose a pecuniary interest, the minister or the other council members may determine that the member can still take part in discussions and decisions. I expect that the council will take a common-sense approach to the operation of this provision and allow a member to take part in deliberations if the only pecuniary interest he or she has is as a policyholder in common with all other policyholders. However, if necessary, I will issue guidelines for use by the council.

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

I need to indicate the Labor Party’s concerns about the late notice that we have had for these amendments. As I said in speaking on the bill as a whole, there were two sets of major reforms passed by this House only months ago; we are here again debating changes to them and, in addition to that, last night we received these further amendments, which relate to conflicts of interest for the council members of PHIAC.

I cannot indicate that we are enthusiastic supporters or strident opposers of these further amendments, because, frankly, they have not been properly considered; we have not had any opportunity to talk with stakeholders about them. Contrary to what the member for O’Connor said earlier—that this was just a simple matter; it was the sort of way that conflicts of interest had been dealt with since time immemorial—this is a change which is completely contrary to the sorts of approaches that have been taken in the past.

It sounds to me, from the minister’s opening comments, that these are sensible changes. We clearly do not want to be in a position where six members of the council cannot deal with certain regulatory matters simply because they are policyholders. I do think that it would be appropriate for there to be some consideration from others as to whether this is the appropriate way to deal with these changes. I am concerned that the council members themselves will determine whether or not there is a sufficient conflict of interest to require them to disqualify themselves.

We are left in a position where we have to trust that the government has properly considered the importance of maintaining the highest standards of independent decision making. I flag that we will pursue this matter in the other place if need be. It seems, from the government’s own description of what is intended by these amendments, that they are sensible ones. We will take advice and a little extra time to assess whether or not Labor supports these changes.

I encourage the minister, if he is interested in legislation passing smoothly through this House, to provide the opposition with appropriate notice and appropriate briefings. We had his staff and departmental officials in the office first thing this morning, briefing us on another piece of legislation which has urgently been required to be rushed through the House. It might have been sensible to flag, at that time, that these amendments were there and to provide a briefing to the opposition. These are just basic courtesies as to the way parliament should work. We are anxious that the minister still continue with those, although his mind is clearly focused on electioneering rather than the detail of health legislation. It would make the processes of getting bills through this House much simpler if he would comply with those basic courtesies.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure it would facilitate the House if we had additional contributions to take us up to question time. I take the opportunity provided by the bill to pass comment on, and to express shock and amazement at, the health minister’s attitude towards the funding of a Medicare licence for Newcastle and the Hunter region’s PET scanner. I cannot believe two things: first of all, that the health minister continues to deny the residents of the Hunter region the opportunity to access that PET scanner and, second, his decision to ridicule the Labor Party for its decision to make that very commitment. I put it to the minister: why is it that the residents of the Hunter region cannot have access to a PET scanner when residents elsewhere in the country can?

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member for Hunter might think that he is assisting the chamber but he is not, and being so far out of relevance with the matter before the chair is not helpful.

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

I would like to politely query that ruling when, of course, the consequences of dealing with private health insurance, what can be covered by private health insurance, and these changes are very much within the ambit of the concern of the member for Hunter, whose constituents are forced to rely on inadequate public services because of the lack of funding for this scheme. It is really quite relevant to the proceedings before the House, and I think that perhaps you might reconsider your ruling.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was no ruling. There was guidance to the member for Hunter that he return to the question before the chair. The honourable member for Gellibrand knows that there are forms of the House to question a decision of the chair, and no reflection should be made.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge that I was ranging very broadly, and I apologise to the chair if I have caused any stress or put the chair under any pressure. This is a great opportunity for the health minister to stand in this place now, on this day, before question time and explain to the residents of the Hunter region why they should not have access to a PET scanner, while so many other Australians have that access. That is his opportunity today: to stand here and explain, firstly, why residents of the Hunter do not have that access and, secondly, his justification for ridiculing the Labor Party for making a similar commitment. I say to the health minister: here is your opportunity to stand at the dispatch box right now, on this day, and make that commitment to the people of the Hunter region.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.