Rowan Holzberger (Forde, Australian Labor Party) | Hansard source

Trying to mansplain this to the doctor in the chair is probably a little bit difficult! Farmers got together to collectivise their risk. If a barn burnt down or if a mob of cows just happened to keel over and die, there was this idea that nobody should be disadvantaged by what was, effectively, an unlucky event. Everybody pooled the resources, and, if somebody was unlucky, there'd be that pool there to get that person out of trouble. There was never an intention, from that attitude to insurance, to make a spectacular profit.

On the other hand, Lloyd's of London was very much founded in the days of, for want of a better word, 'exploration' around the world, as the European countries set sail to colonise other countries. You had these quite dangerous voyages that were being undertaken. The phrase 'to underwrite' literally comes from the idea that there would be a board for the voyages that were going, and you would write your name underneath a voyage, effectively betting whether or not that ship would make it safely. Quite often they didn't, so it was a high-risk bet. Accordingly, you'd want a high-risk return.

As I say, it could be a predilection of having 'Holzberger' as a last name, but, for me, it's the former—that model of taking a more collective approach to risk and taking a more collective approach to looking after people who, effectively, through no fault of their own, find themselves either sick or injured. So it is that sometimes, in order to make sure that insurers aren't out there trying to maximise their profits, it is up to government to save them from themselves.

The government has put the insurance industry on notice for this despicable practice of phoenixing a health insurance product so that they can, effectively, circumvent the law, up the premium, make more money and leave the poor consumer either worse off financially or not insured. That despicable practice is coming to an end. They've been put on notice, they haven't changed their ways and this government is not going to put up with that sort of attitude.

Again, this sits very much with the philosophy of this government, which is about real change—about actually making an impact where it needs to be made and not resting on our laurels. I commend the bill on the basis that this is going to fix this problem. It is going to save insurers from themselves, and it is going to mean that Australian consumers can get the insurance that they need at the cost that is fair and reasonable.

The second thing that this bill does is put the specialists on notice. For too long now, we have seen that gap between what the Medicare rebate pays and what some specialists can charge to be completely out of proportion to, well, anything, whereas with GPs you saw maybe a gap fee of 30 bucks or 40 bucks or 50 bucks or something. It was enough for people not to go and see their GP, by the way. It was enough for people to decide to put food on the table rather than go and look after their health. But, for 30 bucks, 40 bucks or 50 bucks, at least there was some sort of explicable consistency to it all. In specialist fees, it's all over the place. Why will one specialist doing a colonoscopy have a gap fee of 50 bucks and another one have a gap fee of $700? It really doesn't make any sense. This puts the specialists on notice.

This legislation will give consumers an opportunity to see what they're up for before they even go in for the operation or before they go and see their specialist. That in itself is going to have some benefit, for sure, and it will, I think, give specialists a bit of a chance to think about what they are charging. There's nothing like letting a bit of sunlight in as disinfectant.

While doing a little bit of reading for this contribution tonight, I came across the Minister for Health and Ageing, Mark Butler, on 30 April this year, being interviewed by Hamish Macdonald on ABC Sydney. He was talking about this subject of specialist fees, and a caller called in. I'm not sure how Hansard will handle my reading out of this transcript, but it goes:

MACDONALD: We've got Steve here from the Southern Highlands. Good morning to you, Steve.

CALLER STEVE: How are you? How are you doing?

MACDONALD: You've got a knee replacement coming up, I think.

CALLER STEVE: I've got a total knee replacement coming up in about three weeks' time. My out-of-pockets- and I'm in the top health cover, my out-of-pockets are nearly $8000.

MACDONALD: Wow. And can you afford that?

CALLER STEVE: [Laughs] Not on top of the elbow operation that I've got to have at the end of the year as well …

MACDONALD: Yeah, right.

CALLER STEVE: I mean, I'm not a self-funded retiree by any stretch of the imagination.

MACDONALD: And did you go into this knowing that you'd be facing those sorts of costs?

CALLER STEVE: Look, before Christmas last year, I had a massive accident where I fell over and I damaged nearly every bone in my body. And I broke my kneecap and I tore my, what's that little cartilage thing, the meniscus. And I damaged an already replaced metal elbow. So I've got to have them all replaced again. You know, and it's just a frightening expense, I can tell you.

And so, in the 21st century, why should people be choosing between $8,000 or putting up with the pain? How have we got to that situation?

I commend the bill to this House. It is not going to do everything, but it is going to do something. Just as this Albanese Labor government is focused on change, this will change and be real change.

See this speech in context