Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Human Services and Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law. What action is the government taking to try and ensure the integrity of Australia’s Medicare payments, and what obstacles are there to the Australian government’s commitment to maintaining the integrity of Medicare and health spending?

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

I thank the member for her question. Expenditure on Medicare in Australia was over $14 billion in 2008-09. Given the size of this expenditure, it is important that every responsible government take steps to ensure the integrity of the Medicare payment system and ensure that taxpayers’ funds are spent appropriately through a tough and thorough compliance program. But the current compliance program is voluntary, so, if Medicare Australia gets in contact with a medical practitioner, that practitioner can choose not to cooperate with the audit or not to substantiate their claim. At present, most medical practitioners do cooperate, but on average around 20 per cent of medical practitioners simply refuse to cooperate with a Medicare audit and do not supply the documents requested by Medicare.

The government does not believe this approach is acceptable, so accordingly we have introduced a bill to fix this problem and to make it compulsory for medical practitioners to cooperate with a Medicare audit. The government has worked closely with stakeholders, including the Australian Medical Association, the Privacy Commissioner and the Consumers Health Forum, to balance privacy concerns with the public interest and to ensure that the integrity of the public revenue is protected while protecting privacy.

You would have presumed—and the government presumed—that a measure to improve the integrity of Australia’s Medicare payments would have been welcomed and supported by those opposite, and you would assume correctly: it was supported by those opposite. The opposition did have some sensible amendments to suggest, and these were negotiated through in good faith by the opposition and the government and supported by the government. But a funny thing happened on the way to the Senate: the Liberal Party changed leaders. Now we have a situation where the opposition, through the member for Dickson, are saying they will continue to block this measure unless their amendments are accepted—amendments which have absolutely nothing to do with the bill; amendments about a completely different measure that the member for Dickson has moved in this House and that the opposition have moved in the other place.

But there is one little problem with the opposition’s approach: it is called the Australian Constitution. The Speaker informed the House when the Senate amendments were discussed in the House that legal advice shows that these amendments would be a breach of the Constitution. But the Leader of the Opposition is not the sort of bloke to let a little thing like the Constitution get in his way when it comes to blocking important government legislation.

It is a familiar story: the government and the opposition sit down and negotiate a public policy issue in good faith, the opposition suggests amendments, the government accepts them and we strike a deal. It sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Whether it is climate change or the integrity of Medicare, the opposition is prepared to rip up agreements and to put politics before good public policy. We know it was politics first when it came to climate change. I understand tonight there is a program on the ABC—we cannot have advertising for the ABC—where the member for Wentworth talks about the opposition’s change of heart when it comes to climate change. He says:

I think it was entirely political in Tony’s case.

What a ripsnorter of a program that is going to be tonight.

I do accept that the Leader of the Opposition is a conviction politician. But his only conviction is winning the next election: doing or saying whatever it takes to win the next election. He parades as opposing out of principle but his only principle is opposition. That is what we get from this Leader of the Opposition. When in doubt: block. Actually, when you are not in doubt: block; when you are supportive: block—do whatever it takes. He has become the Geoffrey Boycott of Australian politics: the great blocker—not good for much except blocking.

He has gone from being the man who gouged a billion dollars out of the Australian health system to the man who is prepared to let fraud and non-compliance continue for his own political purposes; the man who is prepared to block a sensible bill, supported by the Australian Medical Association and supported by privacy advocates, for his own purposes. We know what damage he did to the Australian health system when he was minister for health. We know he gouged a billion dollars out of the health system: $172 million in 2004-05, $264 million in 2005-06 and $372 million in 2006-07—all when the member for Warringah was the minister for health. He denies it now. We know what damage he did when he was minister for health and he seems determined to keep it up as Leader of the Opposition: the great weathervane, the great blocker—no policy alternatives, just his own political ends.