Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The committee is considering the Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025 and amendment (1) on sheet 3373 moved by Senator Hanson. The question is that that amendment be agreed to. As a division is required, it will be dealt with tomorrow. There is another amendment, but the mover is not here. As no-one else wishes to speak, I give the call to Senator Hanson.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to ask a question of the minister. Minister, can you explain to the people of Australia how you intend to reign in the $3 billion that has been rorted out of Medicare on a yearly basis?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks for the question, Senator Hanson. Indeed, the purpose of the bill that we're presently debating is one of a number of things that the government is doing to deal with integrity issues in the Medicare scheme. And you're right: I think everyone in this place would appreciate that it is a really important objective. It's for this reason that we have brought this legislation before the chamber.

This legislation does a range of things to enable some of the existing powers that are available to authorised officers within the government, for them to take enforcement action where they believe that fraud may be occurring. Some of these acts have been in place for a long time—since 1994—and over time various amendments have created inconsistencies between the kinds of things that may be investigated and the powers that may be used. The legislation seeks to remedy those and give additional powers to investigate fraud.

I think it is worth saying that this bill directly responds to the recommendations from the Philip review. I believe that is the place where you obtained your assessment about the scale of fraud, and the government is, indeed, concerned about that. That's why the bill is before the chamber.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, I'm totally confused. It seems to have gone right over the top of my head. Are you acknowledging that there is fraud? But you couldn't really specify to me how you are addressing the fraud. How are you addressing those people who are not entitled to Medicare, funded by the taxpayer, and stopping them from accessing this? How are you going to stop them from accessing the PBS when they get the scripts from the doctor, which is also paid for by the taxpayer? I want to know: what are you doing to address the fraud that is actually happening?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think you would agree that Australians know that the overwhelming majority of our doctors and our health professionals are honest and hardworking and comply with Medicare rules—

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's $3 billion a year; it's not pocket money.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson, I'm attempting to answer your question. If you wish to interject, perhaps you would like to make another contribution. Shall I sit down?

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, what you're saying is that you're trying to address it. You're trying to just make it appear as if it's not much money. It's $3 billion—that's how much we're talking about—a year. What I want to know is: how do you intend address this? Australians are taxed to the hilt. They can't make it stretch anymore; they cannot meet their means. This government is putting us into a $1.2 trillion debt. The only way you can do it is to increase productivity, which we've seen decline. There's no investment in Australia whatsoever. The only other way you are going to do it is by increasing taxes. We cannot afford this tax on the Australian people. I'm asking: How do you intend to rein in the $3 billion that has been rorted out of the system? What are your answers to it?

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the minister, I remind all senators that they should not interject across the chamber.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Philip review sought to address many of the issues that you're raising. We commissioned Dr Pradeep Philip to undertake an independent review of Medicare integrity and compliance, and those are exactly the kinds of things that you are now raising with me. The amendments that are here before us come out of that review. They're a direct response to that. They're about making those programs, such as the Medicare Benefits Schedule, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the child benefits schedule—which I think Australians value—operate in the way that they're intended to.

What the Philip review found was that there are actors in the system who are either unintentionally or dishonestly obtaining payments, and this bill directly responds to those findings. The measures in the bill, we expect, will only directly impact a very small percentage of practitioners and businesses that are engaged in noncompliance and fraud, but it is important. More generally, patients and practitioners will benefit from better protective health benefit systems that provide more secure access to safe health care and services.

I'll step through some of the measures that are in the bill that we're presently debating. The bill changes the timeframe during which Medicare claims for bulk-billed services may be made, taking it back from two years to one year. The minister will continue to have discretion to allow claims to be submitted after one year. That's important because it will assist with compliance.

I mentioned in my answer to your earlier question that investigative powers are inconsistent—they're fragmented—and it results in difficulty for investigators identifying which powers of investigation may be used in relation to offences. This bill addresses that challenge. It follows other measures that have been implemented by the government to improve integrity in the system. I think we all think that our healthcare services are world leading. They are excellent. It is incredibly important that all Australians have access to services of this kind. We can be really proud of them, but that means taking seriously issues of compliance and integrity, and our government is determined to do so.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that bit of a response. I've put up an amendment to help with rorting, and that is to do with patients showing identification apart from their Medicare cards when they attend the doctor and saying: 'This is me. I haven't picked up my neighbour's or my friend's or my family's Medicare card. This is actually me.'

When you go into pubs and clubs or wherever, you have to sign in. 'Can you show identification of who you are?' 'Yes, no worries. Here it is.' If you want to go and have a beer or have a meal in a pub or a club, you've got to prove who you are and that it's actually you entering that club, and you've got to sign in for it. If you have a drivers licence, you have to provide that identification.

Minister, why are you and your political party so adamant about not ensuring that that is the person claiming those benefits from the taxpayer? They don't have to produce documentation proving that that is them, when we know for a fact that people are rorting the system. I said it in my speech. You've got 100,000 illegals in the country overstaying their visas. I've proven the point—and it came from the Federal Police—that I was told about this person who actually used his friend's card here in Australia, so—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Grogan, a point of order?

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe this amendment that Senator Hanson is talking to is the one that we've already dealt with. It is sheet 3373, which was a deferred vote, but it was actually called.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a deferred vote; however, the senator can continue in the committee stage.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Even though that's been dealt with? Okay.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson, can you resume your seat. I will take further advice, but my understanding is that this is completely within order. It is in order. Senator Hanson, have you finished?

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I'm not finished. Minister, I'm asking you: why are you knocking back the requirement for people who go to see the doctor with a Medicare card to show identification—to back it up with identification that they are actually the person utilising that service funded by the taxpayer? I will go back to the point again—$3 billion a year in rorts. Why will you not support this requirement to show identification, when we insist that people going to pubs and clubs have to show identification to go and have a beer or have a meal?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, I appreciate that you are raising the issues that you raised earlier when you moved your amendment. I gave a response, and I indicated that the government wouldn't be supporting your amendment. That's for a couple of reasons. The point of this bill is to give us investigative powers and to make sure that our investigators have the tools that they need to investigate noncompliance. We take noncompliance very seriously.

We also, of course, want to maintain access. In this country, we want people to understand that, if they get sick, if their children get sick or if they hurt themselves, they can obtain access to medical care. We don't want to place too many barriers in the way of people obtaining that care. I think many of the people that you represent in Queensland, Senator Hanson, would genuinely value their ability to see a doctor and to get the medicines that they and their family need. Those are the issues that we in the government think about when we're making policy around health care, and we're very, very proud of the system that we've created that allows people to have access. It's not so in every other country around the world, and Australians can be very, very proud of the system we've created together. It was the subject of very substantial debate, you may recall, in the most recent election, and I think the response that Australians provided to proposals around Medicare demonstrate the value that Australians place in the Medicare system.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, that's very good. I like to see that national health care that we provide for Australians. But if you expect them to hand over a Medicare card, I'm sure that in their wallet they'll have a drivers licence or some other identification, so I can't see the issue with stopping them from going to see a doctor. And if they're not an Australian citizen, why are you providing health care for them when they should be paying for their own health insurance out of their own pocket, considering they are not Australian citizens?

Minister, there's another point I want to ask you about. You talk about these health centres—super clinics—that you are putting up. Can you tell me how many of them? You've advocated that these super clinics will be running 24/7. Can you please tell me how many of these, I think, 87 clinics you propose will be actually running 24/7?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The bill before us doesn't deal with urgent care clinics at all. I can inform Senator Hanson that the government's commitments were to create urgent care clinics which would have extended hours. It wasn't a commitment in relation to 24/7 opening. I can tell you that, in those places where urgent care clinics have been opened, we see community members very receptive. But there are limits, I think—there are other times in the program where you can ask the government questions about the operation of urgent care clinics, and I would suggest that this bill is considerably narrower than that and really doesn't extend to that issue.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendment (1) on sheet 3374:

(1) Page 40 (after line 4), after Schedule 3, insert:

Schedule 3A — Special arrangements for pharmaceutical benefits in places of detention

National Health Act 1953

1 After subsection 100(1)

Insert:

(1AA) Without limiting subsection (1), the Minister must, by legislative instrument, make special arrangements for, or in relation to, providing that an adequate supply of pharmaceutical benefits will be available to persons who are in prison or another place of detention.

(1AB) The first instrument made under subsection (1AA) must be made by the end of the period of 12 months beginning on the day this subsection commences.

2 At the end of subsections 100(2) and (3)

Add "or (1AA)".

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Thorpe be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I ask that my vote in favour of that amendment be recorded.

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—And I ask that the vote of the Australian Greens in favour of that amendment be recorded.

Progress reported.