Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

We know that the issue was discussed at length by the Senate committee, which recommended existing accreditation arrangements continue until 1 July 2008. The government will be including such a provision in its rules. But to require that all services be accredited or even certified as the first step in an accreditation process by 1 April or 1 July this year would reduce the availability of services and, we believe, potentially lead to a massive logjam at the doors of accreditation agencies.

The government announced on 26 April last year that it would be requiring all insurer services to be accredited by 1 July 2008. We made that announcement last year. The government set this date having regard to the capacity of accreditation agencies and the need for services to organise themselves to apply for and secure accreditation. It is unreasonable to shorten the time frame by 15 months at this late stage in the process. We believe that calls for accreditation from 1 April or 1 July this year imply that patients will be put at risk if this does not happen. We do not accept that. We say that such an argument is incorrect and misleading. There has never been a requirement for insurer services to be accredited in the past and the government is unaware of particular problems arising from the absence of such a requirement.

The government believes, however, that it is important that all health services should be seen to be of a high standard judged against objective criteria, and is acting to ensure that this happens in a measured and considered way. This is a transitional arrangement. We do not think that there will be any harm caused by that July 2008 date. It is something that we have announced and stood by, and we think that if you truncate that you could have a logjam at the doors of accreditation agencies and, in fact, a loss of service to the consumer. That is the government’s reasoning in relation to this. We believe that it is appropriate to have that July 2008 date for those reasons.

Question negatived.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE (PROSTHESES APPLICATION AND LISTING FEES) BILL 2006

PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE (COLLAPSED ORGANIZATION LEVY) AMENDMENT BILL 2006

PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE COMPLAINTS LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 2006

PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE (COUNCIL ADMINISTRATION LEVY) AMENDMENT BILL 2006

PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE (REINSURANCE TRUST FUND LEVY) AMENDMENT BILL 2006

Bills—by leave—taken together and as a whole.

by leave—In respect of the Private Health Insurance (Reinsurance Trust Fund Levy) Amendment Bill 2006, I move:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 17, page 5 (table item 1), omit “by the Council by legislative instrument”, substitute “in writing by the Council”.

(2)    Schedule 1, item 17, page 5 (table item 2), omit “by the Minister by legislative instrument”, substitute “in writing by the Minister”.

(3)    Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 26), after item 18, insert:

18A At the end of section 7

Add:

(4)     An instrument made under paragraph (a) of item 1 or 2 of the table in subsection (1) is not a legislative instrument.

Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (1) and (2)

The effect of these amendments is that a rate of levy that is set using a subordinate instrument will be set by an administrative instrument rather than a legislative instrument. The amendments are covered by section 53 because they amend the Private Health Insurance (Reinsurance Trust Fund Levy) Amendment Bill 2006. The Bill was treated as a proposed law imposing taxation, on the basis that it repeals and substitutes the imposition provision of the principal Act, the Private Health Insurance (Reinsurance Trust Fund Levy) Act 2003.

Consequential amendments

Amendment (3) is consequential on the amendments mentioned above.

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendments (1), (2) and (3)

As this is a bill imposing taxation within the meaning of section 53 of the Constitution, any Senate amendment to the bill must be moved as a request. This is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate.

These three requests remove the requirement for determinations of the rate of risk equalisation levy to be set by legislative instruments and simply require the rates to be determined in writing. This is because the rules made under section 318, clause 30 of the new act, will set out the method of working out the levy. Setting the rate of the levy is thus an administrative decision to give effect to an outcome worked out under the rules and should not be subject to disallowance.

Question agreed to.

Private Health Insurance (Prostheses Application and Listing Fees) Bill 2006, Private Health Insurance (Collapsed Organization Levy) Amendment Bill 2006, Private Health Insurance Complaints Levy Amendment Bill 2006 and Private Health Insurance (Council Administration Levy) Amendment Bill 2006 agreed to and Private Health Insurance (Reinsurance Trust Fund Levy) Amendment Bill 2006 agreed to, subject to requests.

Private Health Insurance Bill 2006 and Private Health Insurance (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2006 reported with amendments; Private Health Insurance (Prostheses Application and Listing Fees) Bill 2006, Private Health Insurance (Collapsed Organization Levy) Amendment Bill 2006, Private Health Insurance Complaints Levy Amendment Bill 2006 and Private Health Insurance (Council Administration Levy) Amendment Bill 2006 reported without amendments or requests; Private Health Insurance (Reinsurance Trust Fund Levy) Amendment Bill 2006 reported with requests; report adopted.