Alan Cadman (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Leanne—that is right. Those circumstances bring back to my memory what has been dealt with here in a more refined way. The House is looking at a refining of the limitations that should be put on professionals in the way in which $1.6 billion of Commonwealth funds is spent. It is a large amount of money and it is open to abuse, so the Commonwealth looked at the various options. This legislation is a revamp of what is currently in place.

The key changes that the House is looking at include extending the prohibitions to include requesters of pathology and diagnostic imaging services; strengthening the prohibition on arm’s length distancing between pathology and diagnostic imaging providers and requesters through the use of family, commercial and/or corporate arrangements—that is, company structures or trusts, which link people together in a way which is poor corporate practice if one wants to achieve openness and clarity; and the broadening of definitions that could be interpreted as an inducement.

The legislation also looks at the introduction of mechanisms to ensure legitimate commercial transactions between pathology and diagnostic imaging providers and requesters; the creation of an expanded range of penalties to those that are relevant at the current time; the incorporation of Crown activities, such as those involving MBS billing by state and territory health authorities within the scope of the provision—gathering in everybody so there is no escape hole from the net that is cast over this provision—and the introduction of a ministerial exemption capacity within the legislation to enable sufficient flexibility so as to avoid unintended consequences. That is another sensible let-out for something that the community would regard as desirable, which allows the minister to declare that something should happen. Ministers are appointed to make decisions and they should be allowed to do so. I think that is a very sensible discretion for the minister.

Groups that were consulted and considered were the Australian government, the states and territories, pathology providers, diagnostic imaging service providers, requesters of pathology and diagnostic imaging services, and consumers. It covers a multiplicity of professions. It was a thorough process and we now have the legislation.

I endorse the legislation. I am particularly enthralled by the way in which the logic is argued. The clarity of the decision and the processes used to reach these conclusions are set out for an inexperienced reader. It should allow the medical profession and their financial and corporate advisers to understand the reasons for the government’s decision. It should allow them to be able to chart a course of practice and conduct which is beyond question and which will clearly achieve the government’s objectives—that is, to demonstrate quite openly and transparently that there is no link between the request for these pathology and diagnostic imaging services that is anything but appropriate and proper in the circumstances.

One of the complaints I hear from practitioners is that it is easy for a young or busy doctor to send somebody off to get everything done and, in some instances, just cherry pick the stuff that comes back that may be applicable to that person, whether they need to or not. Is it being super careful? Yes. Do we like medicos to be super careful? Yes, we do, but we also expect them to use some professional judgement gained by experience and through their knowledge, education and training. I believe this prohibition and its application, together with the penalties, is a very fine piece of work.

Being a member of the government members’ health committee, I commend the minister and those involved with him for the way in which this legislation has been developed. I think the inquiry two years ago was a bit of a mistake or rather unfortunate because the community could have benefited from this legislation then. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context