Jeannie Ferris (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the 12th report of 2006 of the Selection of Bills Committee and move:

That the report be adopted.

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

At the end of the motion, add “and, in respect of the Medibank Private Sale Bill 2006, the bill be referred to the Finance and Public Administration Committee”.

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the following amendment to Senator Ellison’s proposed amendment:

Omit “Finance and Public Administration Committee”, substitute “Community Affairs Committee”.

The reason for moving my amendment is fairly obvious. Whilst it is argued by the minister that this is purely an asset sale, it is obvious that the sale of Medibank Private will have significant and substantial policy implications for health policy in this area. There is a range of issues that the opposition would try to cover in a committee inquiry on the sale of Medibank Private. Those issues are: geographical coverage of insurance services and the impact that it might have on contracting arrangements between insurers and hospitals; the level of coverage that is supplied; whether premiums will be affected by consolidation in the sector or whether gaps will be affected or increased; whether competition in the sector will be enhanced or reduced—Medibank currently has a 30 per cent market share Australia-wide and dominates market share in most states; the rights and entitlements of members, including the impact of the sale on their current standing and policies; and why the Minister for Finance and Administration has asserted that the sale would put downward pressure on premiums. The government has failed to provide any evidence or modelling to support this assertion, despite the Department of Health and Ageing, which is responsible for health insurance policy, being asked at estimates on a number of occasions for such information. When the sale of Telstra bill was referred to a committee it was referred to the relevant policy committee rather than to the finance and public administration committee. It is difficult for the opposition to understand why a similar course of action would not be followed in these circumstances.

The Selection of Bills Committee has in the past operated on the basis of consensus when dealing with the reference of bills to committees. The way in which the committee is now operating is reaching high farce. We have meetings that last less than five minutes. We are told that bills are being referred; many bills that have been referred have not even been tabled or introduced in the parliament and are being pre-empted by the government already seeking to refer them through the Selection of Bills Committee to committees for inquiry. On a number of occasions recently, bills that at the end of the day did not require an inquiry have been referred to committees.

The operation of this committee needs to be seriously looked at. If the government is going to use this place to simply rubber-stamp the way in which it functions, just do it. Do not bother having the meetings; do not bother going through the farce. Just come in here and tell the chamber what you want to do, what you are going to do and what the time line for doing it is going to be. Do not try to engage us in a process that appears to be democratic when in fact, when we express a view about how some of these issues ought to be dealt with, it is simply ignored. It is not the Selection of Bills Committee that is determining where a bill is to be referred; it is the ministers. The advice is coming directly from ministers’ offices. They are determining where bills are to be referred and they are determining the reporting dates, some of which for some inquiries are absolutely absurd.

We have a similar situation with this inquiry into the sale of Medibank Private. The proposal has major implications for health policy. It is not just about the sale of an asset. It has major implications for the way in which Australians will be covered by health insurance in the future and whether that coverage will be of such a character that they can be confident they are insured at a reasonable cost.

But we are not even going to get an opportunity to look at the range of links that might exist in that area of health policy. This bill will be rammed through a committee that has no people on it who have any understanding of the implications for the health area. This is simply being put before a committee to be used in such a way as to get the government the cover to introduce the bill and to move on with the sale of Medibank Private, without any serious scrutiny or consideration of the range of issues and implications that will arise from such a sale for health care in the future in this country. (Time expired)

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek this opportunity to put the perspective of the government on what is a rather technical matter—that is, the question of which committee should deal with the Medibank Private Sale Bill 2006. The issue before us is whether the bill should go before the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration or whether it should go before the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs.

It is the government’s view that the most appropriate committee to consider this bill is the finance and public administration committee. This bill provides for the mechanism by which a government business asset—that is, Medibank Private Ltd—is to be sold. It is a technical bill dealing with all the sale issues involved. It is being handled by the Department of Finance and Administration. The Minister for Finance and Administration is the relevant minister. The minister for finance is the shareholder minister in Medibank Private Ltd. The bill—and what this committee is meant to do is deal with provisions in a bill—deals with all those technicalities. It talks about the Medibank Private sale scheme, the profit status of Medibank Private, the restrictions on ownership of Medibank Private companies, Australian identity, Medibank Private companies and restrictions on the transfer of assets and liabilities of the Medibank Private fund. Those are the matters to be considered by the committee that deals with this bill. It is obvious and logical that that is the jurisdiction of the finance and public administration committee.

With respect to Senator George Campbell’s arguments, I remind him that, back in April, when the Minister for Health and Ageing and I announced the sale of Medibank Private, we also announced the government’s intention to introduce significant reforms to private health insurance in this country in order to make it a more attractive product for consumers and to enhance the viability of the whole private health insurance industry. Legislation to give effect to those policy objectives is currently being finalised and will soon be ready for debate and discussion. I foreshadow that from the point of view of the government, subject to the views of those opposite and all members of the chamber, the most appropriate committee to deal with that legislation is indeed the community affairs committee. That is legislation that will deal with the whole issue of private health insurance and private health insurance reform, not the sale of a particular government business.

I urge the opposition, in moving to have the Medibank Private Sale Bill referred to the community affairs committee, to consider that point: the parliament will be dealing with wider reform issues in a reform bill. I am not sure whether we will get to it in this session, but certainly we will in the next session of parliament. I anticipate that the government will support a proposal that that bill go to the community affairs committee. But it is the government’s clear view that a bill dealing with the technical issues related to the sale of a government business should be dealt with by the most appropriate committee, which is the finance and public administration committee.

We think it is a perversion of the Senate committee process to attempt to send this bill to the wrong committee. It reminds us of why the Senate committee structure did need reform, which was the abuse of the Senate committee system which had been evident in the last few years. It is an abuse to send this bill to the wrong committee. It is clear to anyone examining this issue objectively that the appropriate committee is the finance and public administration committee.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I get only one go to speak to this issue, as I understand it, so I will try to cover the whole issue—that is, both the amendment and the substantive motions. For the Democrats the big issue is not even which committee the Medibank Private Sale Bill 2006 goes to, although I think that is a valid question. The issue for us is the reporting date requirement, which is that we have to report before the end of the year.

The Democrats proposal, which is contained in the report, is that we have a report-back date in March. Frankly, the only argument for the bill going to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration rather than the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs is that the finance committee does not have much on but the community affairs committee has stacks on. That would be a valid reason if the bill had to go through before the end of the year, but it does not. The government’s own reason for urgency, which is contained in this report, states that ‘the government has announced its intention to sell Medibank Private Ltd through a share market float in 2008’. Why on earth is that a justification for having to ram this through the parliament before the end of 2006?

There is no urgency, and the suggestion by the minister that, somehow, this is just some sort of accounting measure is ludicrous. You might as well say that all the media reforms we have just debated were really just about business matters and that that bill should have gone to the finance committee or the economics committee or the corporations committee because it was just about business decisions, as though it would have had no impact on the media and the communications landscape.

To suggest that such a major change to the ownership of Medibank Private, the profit status and all these sorts of things have no implications for health policy is ludicrous. To try to run the argument that this is just some arcane accounting measure gives an indication of how little attention the government is paying to the potential consequences for the private health sector and the health sector in general as a result of these actions.

The Democrats believe that the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs is the better committee to refer the bill to—and, frankly, we can all substitute people across to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration anyway; it is a bit of an unnecessary process—but the real problem is the reporting date. That goes to the big problem that has now become apparent, continually, with this committee process, as Senator George Campbell noted in his remarks. This may seem arcane to people, but I hope there is recognition that it is important. The Medibank Private example is classic. The government is trying to railroad this through. The people are being railroaded in their own backbench. They are trying to railroad it through—to push it all through in a rush before any opposition is built up and we get another Snowy that gets the thing overturned. That is what they are trying to do. By voting for these ridiculously short inquiries time after time, coalition senators are gagging and railroading themselves. Frankly, I am getting a bit tired of their continually voting for these ridiculously short reporting dates and then, when we get into the committee, they sit there and ask, ‘How the hell are we going to deal with this in such a short time frame?’ You have the power to fix the problem; we don’t. It is your responsibility. How about you take some?

Another classic example—which is even worse—is the copyright legislation, which was referred to a committee before it was introduced into the parliament. We were being asked whether we supported its referral without knowing what was in it. There was a statement of reasons attached for the urgency—which was better than what we have had in the past, which was basically no reason at all—and the purpose of the bill but not the reasons for the referral. That legislation was introduced half an hour ago in the House of Representatives, and the reporting date is 10 November, three weeks away, two weeks of which are sitting weeks or estimates committees weeks. The only non-sitting week is next week, so that committee will have no opportunity to have a public hearing.

Another aspect is that, when we are given half an hour to decide whether or not a bill needs to go to a committee, there is the potential for a committee to get a bill that nobody thinks needs examining or to get a bill that does need examining but where the committee has a ridiculously short time frame to do it in. It is a ludicrous scenario. It is the ministers who are creating this situation. The committee has no say in it, in effect, so this is not a criticism of the committee. You also have to recognise that, with the copyright bill, it is not just about what is in it; it is what is not in it. From what I can tell from what has been just introduced, what is not in the legislation is the proposal to remove the one per cent cap on commercial radio fees paid to performers—copyright holders. That was promised to be part of the balanced changes to the fair use changes. That is not in the bill. The fair use changes are. I do not know whether that is a big issue but to give you half an hour to decide not just to look at the bill but to try to determine whether something is not in the bill—and then to give a ridiculously short time frame to examine it—is simply ludicrous. The process shows contempt for the Senate, but much more importantly it is contempt for the public and democracy. (Time expired)

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to indicate that the Australian Greens are supportive of the Medibank Private Sale Bill 2006 being addressed as a health issue—which clearly we all understand it will be—so that we can look at the implications of this sale not only on the private health insurance area but also on our public health system. There are implications for this in the $3 billion that this government spends every year in providing the private health insurance rebate. That is an issue that needs to be addressed, and the community affairs committee is an appropriate place to do that. The community affairs committee has a lot of work to do. Given that the government does not intend to proceed with the sale of Medibank Private until 2008, and it has indicated that the timetable for it is dependent on legislation being enacted, then clearly the government is prepared to wait—and it should wait so that the community can have a real and genuine discussion about the implications of the sale of Medibank Private—so the community affairs committee can look at it next year. We support the proposal put forward that there be a longer reporting date so that these things can be properly addressed.

This is one situation where we do know what is proposed in the bill—it is pretty simple; the government wants to sell off Medibank Private—but there are many other situations where we do not. I can think of migration legislation that just last week was referred to a committee. We do not know what is in it—therefore we do not know how long we need for people in the community to genuinely be involved in discussions about the implication of the legislation—because we did not even see the legislation before the government referred it to a committee. At the time we were being asked to agree to refer it, we could not even get a copy of the bill so we knew what it dealt with. All we can rely on is a few dot points that the minister’s office has given us. They may cover some things in the bill and leave other things out. They may not mention the implications of the bill. We cannot make that assessment when we cannot even see the bill, yet we are being asked to decide whether it should go to a committee and how long it should go for.

This process is taking away the strong role that senators have had in reviewing legislation. The government is simply abusing the processes by not showing us the legislation and then deciding which committee legislation should be referred to, how long it should be referred, who is allowed to say anything and whether or not there can be a time frame for public inquiry and community debate about these important issues. So, on this issue of Medibank Private, the Greens say there are health implications. They need to be addressed by a Senate committee, and that Senate committee needs time to look at the significant health implications of this proposal. That means into next year, and that is what we should be doing here. The Greens absolutely support the proposal to refer the legislation to the community affairs committee and to give enough time for the public to be involved in the debate about the health implications of this proposal to sell Medibank Private.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator George Campbell put the Labor position very clearly. I do not want to cover all the ground he covered—I want to make some additional remarks—but his argument is the key one. The sale of Medibank Private is, first of all, not urgent in the sense that the government have said they are not going to sell it until 2008, if they are still in power. There are a couple of hurdles to get over first. Secondly, the government are seeking to define the debate about the sale of Medibank as a narrow financial debate about the terms of the sale, about the issues of ownership and structure of the company, whereas there are far wider implications to do with the sale, to do with the cost of health insurance to the Australian public, to do with the rights of the current members and to do with the effect on the efficiency and management of the whole private health sector.

If you turn to the Selection of Bills Committee report, you see that it was referred in part by the Democrats and Labor. The reasons for reference go to things like the effect on competition, the impact on health insurance, the implications for equity and access to health care. The people who have been invited to attend are the Doctors Reform Society, the AMA, Catholic Health Australia and the Australian Private Hospitals Association. Their issues are not merely issues of financial interest; their issues go to the future of the health insurance market and to the future of the health system in Australia. The government wants to narrow and control the debate; it wants to determine who appears and what they say and totally control it because it knows it cannot win the argument in the public arena. That is an abuse of the Senate process, and we ought to support Senator George Campbell’s amendment, which says that the broader issues ought to be examined by the Standing Committee on Community Affairs. It highlights the absolute farce that the committee system in the Senate is being turned into by this government.

We now have the ridiculous situation where government ministers have to pay lip-service to the Senate committee system. They have found that they cannot win the public debate about riding roughshod over the committee system so they have got smart and they have become cynical. Now we have a minister who says: ‘I think I might introduce a bill next week. I’ll get it referred to the Senate committee system so that when I actually get a bill we can ram it through within a couple of days.’ We have the absolutely ludicrous position where the Senate is referring bills it has not seen to committees on the motion of the government that at some time in the future it will introduce a bill relating to something generally described by the minister, and then it will have an inquiry. The government also sets the timetable for the inquiry so that the committee has to report before the next sitting of the Senate. However important the issue, however wide the terms of debate ought to be, however much it requires public examination, the Senate is asked to report the day or the Friday before the Senate comes back, so the government can ram the legislation through in the first week we are back. There is no consideration of how long a proper inquiry would take and there is no integrity to the system. The committees get a day or two days to take public evidence and then it is rammed through the committee.

To be fair to government senators, while they are not showing much bottle on the floor of the Senate, report after report has government senators saying: ‘We didn’t get time to look at this. We would have preferred more time. In the limited time available, we think it is probably okay because the man has told us so.’ I have served on committees where the government chairman has agreed wholeheartedly with us that there is not enough time to do the bill justice, to allow the public to have input, but when they seek authority from the minister to have a longer reporting time frame they are told no.

So we have this ridiculous farce of a process where we keep the sausage factory going. We are passing bills we have hardly seen. There are hundreds of government amendments moved at the last minute that are not cited but are passed through the Senate. So maintaining our review function and our capacity to examine legislation has been totally eroded. The government changed the rules so that they govern all the committee processes. They have control in the Senate, so they pay lip-service to the committee system, which is being undermined at every turn. This is just another example. I urge government senators to stand up for the role of the Senate and say: ‘This is not good enough. The executive should not be able to ride roughshod over the Senate.’ (Time expired)

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator George Campbell’s) be agreed to.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

At the end of the motion, add “but, in respect of the Copyright Amendment Bill 2006, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee report by 4 December 2006”.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

The Copyright Amendment Bill 2006 has not even come into this house. It was introduced into the other house in the last half hour; it is not here yet. The government’s own motion has set the Selection of Bills Committee a reporting date of 10 November for this legislation. It will mean that the committee will have only one week for the matter to be scheduled for a hearing date and advertised and for submissions to be dealt with. Given that the committee could schedule hearings next week and deal with all of those matters, there are estimates hearings in the following week and then the bill has to be reported on. It is ridiculous that the government should be putting a bill as important as this one through such a process.

When you look at this bill, you see that it includes matters that go to the free trade agreement, and we understand that there is an urgent date for that to be dealt with. The government has also tacked on a range of other matters, including the fair use review. In other words, the content of this bill is sufficient to warrant an inquiry that allows people time to make submissions and for the committee to deal with them. The government is jamming the legislative program by using this tactic of referring bills to committee with a short turnaround time, without allowing time for this place to look at them. The shadow minister has not even had a brief in respect of this bill to be able to determine whether it even requires a reference to a legislation committee. This is an abuse of the process, and the government should agree to this amendment.

Question put.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 12 OF 2006

(1)

The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 18 October 2006 at 4.17 pm.

(2)

The committee considered proposals relating to the Medibank Private Sale Bill 2006 and resolved to recommend that the provisions of the bill be referred for inquiry and report by 27 November 2006, but was unable to agree on the committee to which the bill should be referred (see appendices 1 to 3 for statements of reasons for referral).

(3)

The committee resolved to recommend—That upon its introduction in the House of Representatives the provisions of the Copyright Amendment Bill 2006 be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for inquiry and report by 10 November 2006 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral).

(4)

The committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:

• Broadcasting Services Amendment (Collection of Datacasting Transmitter Licence Fees) Bill 2006
• Crimes Amendment (Victim Impact Statements) Bill 2006
• Datacasting Transmitter Licence Fees Bill 2006
• Inspector of Transport Security Bill 2006
• Inspector of Transport Security (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2006
• Maritime Legislation Amendment (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Bill 2006
• Migration Amendment (Border Integrity) Bill 2006
• Migration Legislation Amendment (Enabling Permanent Protection) Bill 2006.

The committee recommends accordingly.

(5)

The committee deferred consideration of the following bill to its next meeting:

• Australian Securities and Investments Commission Amendment (Audit Inspection) Bill 2006.

(Jeannie Ferris)

Chair

19 October 2006

Appendix 1

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Medibank Private Sale Bill 2006

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To examine the provisions of the bill relating to the sale of Medibank Private to ascertain

• if the Government is entitled to cash out the value that has built up in a not for profit structure or whether it belongs to the policy holders,
• what effect the sale would have on competition and the efficiency of the private health insurance sector as a whole
• whether there will be differential effects across the various states and territories
• what impact the sale may have on health insurance
• the implications for access and equity in healthcare for all Australians.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Australian Health Insurance Association

Australian Private Hospitals Association

Private Health Insurance Administration Council

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Australian Consumers Association/CHOICE

Australian Medical Association

Doctors Reform Society

Health Issues Centre

Catholic Health Australia

Anglicare

Public Health Association of Australia

Professor Stephen Duckett, Professor of Health Policy, Dean of the Faculty of Health Sciences

Professor John Deeble

Professor Stephen Leeder

Dr Ken Harvey

Other private health insurance funds

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Community Affairs Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Possible reporting date: 20 March 2007

Appendix 2

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Medibank Private Limited Sale Bill 2006

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

Statement of reasons for introduction and passage in the 2006 spring sittings

Purpose of the bill

The purpose of the bill is to remove a statutory prohibition on the sale of Medibank Private Limited’s shares, and to implement other measures appropriate to facilitate the sale of the Company.

Reasons for Urgency

On 12 September 2006, the Government announced its intention to sell Medibank Private Limited through a share market float in 2008. The legislation is essential to the sale of the Commonwealth’s shares in Medibank Private Limited, and the sale timetable is dependent upon the legislation being enacted.

(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Finance and Administration, Senator the Hon. Nick Minchin)

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is referred:

Finance and Public Administration Committee

Possible hearing date:

Possible reporting date(s):

Appendix 3

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Medibank Private Limited Sale Bill 2006

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

Including:

• Impact on PHI premiums
• Impact on Medibank members and current policy entitlements
• Impact of sale on members’ entitlements
• Impact of state by state competition in both insurance and hospital market.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

AHIA, funds, previous commissions, AMA, Catholic Health, DOHA, Private Hospitals Association

Committee to which bill is referred:

Community Affairs Committee

Possible hearing date:

Possible reporting date(s): 7 December 2006

Appendix 4

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill(s):

Copyright Amendment Bill 2006

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration

Statement of reasons for introduction and passage in the 2006 spring sittings

Purpose of the bill

The bill contains provisions to implement Australia’s remaining obligations under the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) concerning intellectual property rights. It creates a liability scheme for certain activities relating to the circumvention of “effective technological measures”. These measures help protect copyright owners from piracy and will encourage the increased availability to consumers of copyright materials in digital form.

The AUSFTA sets out a number of permissible exceptions to the liability scheme for:

• interoperability of software
• studying encryption technology
• testing security of computer networks
• identifying and disabling “spyware”
• security, law enforcement and similar governmental purposes, and
• access for acquisition decisions by libraries, archives and educational institutions.

The AUSFTA also provides for additional limited exceptions where the case for such an exception has been demonstrated. The bill amends the Copyright Act 1968 to give effect to the liability scheme and the exceptions. Additional limited exceptions will be included in the Copyright Regulations on a case by case basis. A number will be included as a result of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs “Review of TPM Exceptions”.

The bill also implements the outcomes of several copyright reviews conducted by the government in 2005-06, including the outcome of the “Fair Use Review” and the review of protection for encoded broadcasts. The bill also extends the jurisdiction of the Copyright Tribunal, makes amendments so that Australia can accede to the World Intellectual Property Organization Internet treaties and makes a range of changes to the enforcement provisions in the Copyright Act.

Reasons for Urgency

The Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement came into force on 1 January 2005. However, an additional two year period was granted for the commencement of the provisions relating to the liability scheme for the circumvention of effective technological measures. Those provisions, which will be given effect to by this bill, must commence on I January 2007.

(Circulated by authority of the Attorney-General)

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is referred:

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Possible hearing date:

Possible reporting date(s): 10 November 2006