Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I was pleased to hear that the government has reconsidered the macular degeneration issue. I understand it was an issue that would have impacted on a significant number of Australians. We are still persuaded to support these amendments, for a number of reasons. Due to a lack of time, I will not reiterate the points that Senator Cormann has made. When these amendments were first suggested, I did seek some advice about whether this was precedent setting or not because, as has already been explained to the chamber, it is a change to the way we normally deal with legislative instruments. I was told that this is not a precedent but has occurred before. That was one of the issues that I was concerned about, that this was in some way upsetting normal due process. It is not. I think in this area it is particularly important because this does have such significant ramifications for the healthcare system in Australia.

The disallowance process is a negative process. Essentially a regulation comes into effect until it is disallowed. The legislation about the dental program for those with chronic illness was handled through disallowance of regulation, and that caused all sorts of uncertainty in the community. People did not know whether the dental scheme was on or off. It caused a great deal of upset and uncertainty in the community, with people who were halfway through their treatment not knowing whether it was going to continue and people who were about to start treatment not knowing whether it was going to go ahead.

Given that we are talking about quite sensitive issues around healthcare treatment, it is most appropriate that we consider regulations beforehand rather than afterwards. These are quite contentious procedures. We have just had the debates about IVF, macular degeneration and cataracts, which I do particularly want to ask a question about. We feel that in this instance it is appropriate to have the consultation beforehand. In fact, this would speed the debate, as long as the government managed their legislative process properly. If they have consulted adequately and they are confident they have the support, the changes could be dealt with very quickly, rather than going through an extended consideration using a disallowance instrument. Perhaps the government could see the positive side of this and see that in fact it could help speed the process, if the government managed the legislative program correctly.

Senator Ludwig asked about the mechanics of this. I think the government know full well how they could manage these changes if they were introduced. It is about managing the consultation process adequately so that it is done beforehand rather than afterwards, unlike what happened with IVF. Big surprise—when they got to the consultation process and had everyone sitting down at the table, they actually came up with a solution that has support. If we believe the government, and I do, that it is in the current expenditure framework, in the guidelines that they set for the previous mechanisms—in other words, it is not costing any more—they have managed to achieve an outcome that everybody seems happy with.

I likewise give an undertaking that, if they do the consultation beforehand, they can bring those changes in here and we will deal with them as expeditiously as we can and not create unnecessary obstructions. That would obviously require work by the government to ensure that they adequately consulted all stakeholders, all those that are affected—including consumers. I think consumers are sometimes left off the list when there is a consultation process. If the government brings those changes in, having adequately consulted, that will help facilitate debate in this place. In this instance we do support these amendments. We understand that we are not setting a precedent and this has occurred before.