Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

A lot of the decisions that we make in this place are difficult, but this is not one of them. While I understand the basis on which the government is bringing the Health Insurance Amendment (Extended Medicare Safety Net) Bill 2009 forward, I believe parts of it have been ill-considered in relation to the extended Medicare safety net and the impact it will have, in particular on couples seeking in-vitro fertilisation services.

One in six people in this country will encounter problems conceiving and need medical assistance to conceive. I think most of us know someone who has struggled to start or add to a family. In the past there was little that could be done for these families but, thankfully, science has provided options that many only dreamed of previously. While IVF can provide a solution, I am told by reproductive advocacy groups, such as ACCESS Australia, that the process is still heart wrenching and difficult. My very real concern is that this legislation will make that process all the more difficult.

According to ACCESS Australia and experts in this field, such as Dr John McBain, who is Head of Reproductive Services at Melbourne’s Royal Women’s Hospital, the government’s proposed changes to the Medicare safety net could see couples seeking IVF facing their out-of-pocket expenses increasing from around $1,000 a cycle to $3,000 a cycle. We should keep in mind that the average couple usually endures three cycles before they are able to conceive with IVF. In June I held a press conference with Dr McBain and Queensland mum Peta Clacherty, along with her two-year-old daughter, Emily, who was conceived through IVF. At the time Dr McBain said:

Infertility is not a choice. The one in six people who will need medical assistance to conceive have no control over this condition and these significant increases in the cost of treatment will make an already stressful situation for couples even more stressful.

He is right, and I do not think anybody here should be adding to the stress faced by couples at a time like that.

The government said it was changing the way funding for IVF was applied because some doctors were reportedly rorting the system. My response to that is simple: target the doctors, not the patients. If there is evidence of genuine wrongdoing, address the problem with the doctors involved, but do not punish the 40,000 Australians who access IVF services annually, some of whom are lucky enough to conceive one or more of the 11,000 babies which are born as a result.

For years we have had the baby bonus for anybody who has had a baby in this country, regardless of circumstance, and yet we have a group of Australians with specific medical needs who just want to have the chance to have a child, to add to their lives and to society and the government says to them, ‘Sorry, we can’t afford to help you.’ I do not agree. We can afford to help these couples and we must help these couples. That is why I put forward the second reading amendment that Senator Cormann moved on behalf of the coalition, Senator Fielding and myself. I do not want Australia to become the kind of country where there is IVF for the rich and infertility for the rest.

Also there are some concerns in relation to cataract surgery. Groups, such as the Council on the Ageing, have also expressed some legitimate concerns about the possible unintended consequences of this legislation. That is why I will be pressing for the second reading amendment to be passed. In the absence of that, I cannot support the second reading of this bill.