Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I seek to amend the motion standing in my name relating to a reference to the Community Affairs References Committee before asking that it be taken as formal. I seek to amend the reporting date for this inquiry from 22 August 2011 to 12 October 2011 and also to change paragraph (c) so that it reads 'the effectiveness and accuracy of the billing code and prosthesis list' rather than the current wording, which is 'the effectiveness and accuracy of current billing systems'. I seek leave to make a short explanation.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for two minutes.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The reason for the amendments to paragraph (c) is that my office was contacted by the committee secretariat in relation to the wording. There was concern that 'current billing systems' may have been too ambiguous and changing that to 'the billing code and prosthesis list' would give a clearer definition in the event that the department was concerned about it. I make it clear this is not a request of the department in terms of the amendment, but the committee secretariat raised an issue about what it meant and this clarifies that. On that basis, I move my amendment, as amended:

That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 12 October 2011:

The regulatory standards for the approval of medical devices in Australia, with particular attention to devices with high revision rates, and in undertaking the inquiry the committee consider:   (a)   the role of the Therapeutic Goods Administration in regulating the quality of devices available in Australia;   (b)   the cost effectiveness of subsidised devices;   (c)   the effectiveness and accuracy of the billing code and prosthesis list;   (d)   the processes in place to ensure that approved products continue to meet Australian standards;   (e)   the safety standards and approval processes for devices that are remanufactured for multiple use;   (f)   the processes in place to notify the relevant authorities and the general public of high revision rates or possible faulty devices;   (g)   the effectiveness of the current regimes in place to ensure prostheses with high revision rates are identified and the action taken once these devices are identified;   (h)   the effectiveness of the implemented recommendations of the Health Technology Assessment; and   (i)   any other related matter.

Question agreed to.