Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

The government says there is ongoing scrutiny and review being carried out, but the point is that it is the parliament that is making this decision today. I think the government needs to be reminded of that. It is not just the government that deals with the Australian public or this sector or anything else; it is the parliament making this decision. We need to be sure that the objectives that the government has set are tested against those objectives but also against the broader objectives of a better health system in this country. I do not think I am overstating this issue. What would be required of this review, of course, would be that it be undertaken independently, that it report to the minister and then, most importantly, that it table the report in both houses of parliament within 15 days of receiving the report.

We have raised a whole lot of questions. We do not know whether premiums are going to rise, for instance. We do not know the scope of this change. This is a major change to our health system. We have no idea whether the government’s claims are accurate. We have no idea whether, as I said, this will damage our public health insurance system or not and, if so, to what extent. We do not know the answers to these questions. It is not an unreasonable request to say, ‘Let’s have a proper, independent, public review that is brought to this place so that we can know if the decision that is made here is the right one.’

I will not deliver this lecture again, but I think, Minister, that it is not acceptable for you to say, ‘Our review is the review that we want to conduct; it will be with lots of people; it will be with the sector; we will talk to doctors and the private health insurance sector.’ That is not a review. That might be a review in your terms, but it is not a proper, independent review and it is not a review that we can trust. It is not a review that we will even see necessarily. A review is necessary on this very major change to our health system and I urge you to reconsider.

As I said, I would be quite happy to drop the terms of reference so that we can find some words that are acceptable to everybody. But to not have a review of such a major change seems to me to be irresponsible. The government deserves to be heavily criticised for not proceeding down this path if it maintains this position.

Question negatived.

I oppose divisions 34 to 40 in the following terms:

Division 34, page 21 (line 2) to Division 40, page 30 (line 9), TO BE OPPOSED.

This is also an amendment that I have moved in the past on private health insurance. It is our view that Lifetime Health Cover and the age loadings have coerced people into being members of private health insurance who would otherwise not be. If we removed that Lifetime Health Cover provision then we would be likely to see changes in those people who are in private health insurance and a major saving on the rebate.

I would have moved a second reading amendment, had I not already done one, that would have seen funding from the private health insurance rebate transferred into a much more sensible arrangement of public dental health programs, as I said in my speech in the second reading debate. The Commonwealth subsidises dental services for the wealthy through the rebate but it pulled back, as we all know, in 1996 from providing any funding for the public dental health services. That has had huge health implications. Waiting lists now are increasing again. You can sit back and say, ‘It’s up to the states,’ but it is primary health care and I would argue that there is a Commonwealth role in making sure that we provide affordable dental health services. However, I was unable to put that second reading amendment. That is the point behind this. It would free up some of that very expensive rebate to be spent on a more equitable approach. It would balance the huge amount which is currently going through that rebate to people who are largely wealthier and can afford private health insurance. I know they are not all wealthy. I understand that some people struggle on quite low incomes to be able to afford private health insurance. I have never understood why myself. It seems to me to be very expensive. I much prefer the public health insurance system.

So that is what this amendment is about. As I said, I have moved an amendment of this sort many times before and I will keep moving them. I also recognise that the government is not interested in this amendment and maybe even Labor is not interested. Nonetheless, I think the reforms that ought to be made to the system are to do with removing that coercive aspect of private health insurance.