Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Hansard source

These are truly independent people asking these questions. So why would it be unreasonable for us to ask these questions? More importantly, why would it be unreasonable for the minister to answer the questions? The Bills Digest goes on to say:

It is not yet clear how the ‘upstream’ National Health Performance Authority proposed in this Bill will connect with ‘downstream’ factors …

That goes directly to questions being asked by both of the shadow parliamentary secretaries for health on this issue, so those questions are completely reasonable. The Bills Digest goes on to say:

This Bill … does not give the Authority any enforcement powers …

That is exactly the point we were trying to make before. What penalties are in place? If the government, having collected all this data, having created this new bureaucracy, having spent all of this money, are not happy with the way in which the data is trending, what can they do? This is a basic question and it has been raised not just by us but by the Parliamentary Library, the member for Lyne and others. The Bills Digest goes on:

It is unclear how many primary health care providers will be monitored directly by the National Health Performance Authority.

That, again, goes to questions that were reasonably asked before. I do not think that a guillotining in this situation should even be canvassed, frankly, until these questions have been properly answered. For the minister to stay in her seat and refuse to contribute answers to reasonable questions is unacceptable.

In conclusion, the Digest makes a number of other points, and I think it goes to the concerns, as I have said before, of many stakeholders—not just those of the coalition and the member for Lyne. Those stakeholders have a real interest, as do many of us, in making sure that these reforms are tangible, are meaningful and achieve the aspirations that many of us in this place, including the member for Lyne, have spoken about both privately and publicly. That is why I think it is completely reasonable for us to put these questions and, most importantly, for the minister to respond. It is incumbent upon the minister to at least make some contribution to try and answer what are reasonable questions.

See this speech in context