Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the shadow minister’s assurance that he does not seek to frustrate the passage of this Health Insurance Amendment (Compliance) Bill 2009. However, I am concerned that the rest of his contribution indicates that the opposition do seek to frustrate the passage of this bill. In fairness, I would say that there has been very good engagement between the government and the opposition on this bill. There has been very good engagement with the former shadow minister for human services, Senator Scullion, and I know that the current shadow minister for human services has continued in that vein, because I think the government and the opposition agree that this bill is important.

The government and the opposition agree that it is important that the integrity of Medicare Australia’s operations be protected. The government and the opposition agree that those doctors doing the right thing should be protected and those doctors doing the wrong thing should not be protected, and that this bill is important in enabling the government to deal appropriately with that very, very small number of doctors who seek to do the wrong thing through their interaction with Medicare. But what the shadow minister for health has done and what the opposition have done is to apply to this bill amendments which (a) are unconstitutional, (b) are totally unrelated to this bill and (c) undermine the negotiations between the government and the opposition on the cataract measure, which is completely separate to this bill.

If the shadow minister for health really, seriously, wants to be taken at his word that he does not seek to frustrate the passage of this bill then he should drop the opposition’s insistence on these amendments in this place and in the other place—and he should let this bill pass. If he wants to continue to quarrel about cataracts, that is his right, but he should do so in relation to legislation which is relevant. He should do in forums of the House which are relevant and not seek to frustrate the passage of what is an important bill, a bill which otherwise enjoys the support of the government and the opposition. He should drop the political stunt and get out of the way of the government seeking to implement a very important measure.

See this speech in context