HANSARD EXTRACT
|
Health Legislation Amendment (Private Health Insurance)
Bill 2006: Second Reading |
| 15 June 2006 |
Mr
HAYES
(Werriwa) (9.56 a.m.)—I
rise today in general support of the provisions of the
Health Legislation Amendment (Private Health
Insurance) Bill 2006, but in particular I support the
amendments foreshadowed by the shadow minister for health. I welcome
a number of the provisions contained in this bill but stop short of
praising it entirely, just as this bill stops short of really
providing the safeguards needed for consumers of private health
insurance.
The provisions of this bill change the power of
the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman and make some adjustments to
the administration of the private health insurance rebate by
Medicare and the Australian Taxation Office. The bill expands the
powers of the ombudsman so that in addition to its role of dealing
with disputes between customers and funds it can now deal with
issues related to arrangements between insurers, the brokers and
providers of services. On a voluntary basis the Private Health
Insurance Ombudsman can also mediate in disputes.
Amendments are also made so that the Private
Health Insurance Ombudsman will be able to direct the participation
of those subject to a complaint in compulsory conciliation. At the
request of the minister or of the ombudsman’s own volition, the
ombudsman will be able to mediate between a health fund and a health
care provider. No doubt all members would agree that this is an
important power for the ombudsman. Importantly, the ombudsman will
have powers to require records to be produced not only from the
funds but also from the health care providers.
This bill also takes action to address the
protection of those involved with the ombudsman from civil and
personal liabilities that may arise from its increased powers. The
bill also contains a provision that puts consumer protection front
and centre when it comes to the focus of the powers and actions of
the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman. This is an important
provision that dovetails with the extension of the ombudsman’s
powers.
In her speech yesterday the member for Lalor
indicated that the last thing Labor wanted to see was the ombudsman
concentrating its efforts on contractual disputes between funds and
health care providers, and also that Labor would not want the
ombudsman to act as a referee simply on pricing and servicing
disputes between funds and providers. I would go a step further and
say that I do not believe that private health insurance customers
would want to see that the focus of attention of the ombudsman would
be on anything but the private health insurance customer.
Health insurance disputes often involve complex
issues. It is about time customers were represented in the private
health insurance market. People dealing with health insurance and
health care providers often feel intimidated by having to deal with
these giants in the industry. They know that the insurers, should
they want to, can effectively starve the customer by delaying their
entitlements and dragging things out as long as possible.
Additionally, most customers simply do not have the financial
resources to pursue matters through the courts, should it come to
that. I support increased consumer protection, particularly in
complex markets such as the private health insurance market. I
support the provisions in this bill that extend and enhance the
power of the ombudsman when it comes to providing consumer
protection.
I cannot participate in this debate on private
health insurance without talking about what is on the minds of most
people in my electorate when we raise this issue. Private health
insurance is an important issue for the constituents of my
electorate—which is why I draw it to the attention of the House—and
I daresay it is the same for members opposite. Private health
insurance offers a greater degree of health care protection to the
many families who take it out and it is an important factor in the
budgets of those families. When I mention private health insurance
to constituents in my electorate I hear some strongly worded
phrases, and usually one or two references to the fact that they
feel they are being ripped off.
People in my electorate take out private health
care insurance for the additional level of service it provides for
them and their families should they fall ill or need
hospitalisation. They understand and accept that insurance means
that you can often pay premiums for a long period of time and not
call on the insurance company to make any payments, as nothing has
happened, and in such circumstances they consider themselves
fortunate. What they do not understand, and what they are not
willing to accept, is that they are paying, on average, premiums up
to 40 per cent higher than they were in 2001. The member for Bowman
recently took us through a lengthy dissertation justifying the price
increases that have occurred. I invite him to front up to the people
in his electorate and explain why premiums have increased since 2001
by an average of 40 per cent.
What people do not accept is that, despite the
multi-billion dollar subsidy of the private health insurance
industry that this government has locked the Australian taxpayer
into, these premiums go up every time the industry applies to the
minister for a price increase. There have been eight successive
increases in health insurance premiums, every one of them having
been ticked off by the minister. People accept that prices are
generally going to rise over time. They see the cost of food and
other consumer items rising. They know that other insurance premiums
are also going to rise due to the costs being experienced by
industry. What they cannot accept is that private health insurance
premiums have increased by 40 per cent since 2001.
Constituents in my electorate were under the
impression that there would be downward pressure on health insurance
premiums. Why would they think that? It is simple—they believed the
minister when he made the completely empty promise in 2001 that
there would be downward pressure on premiums. It is unacceptable
that, whenever the health insurance industry companies make an
application to the minister for a price rise, he gets out his rubber
stamp, turns to the last page in the relevant document and stamps
the page—giving the price rise a big tick of approval. Worse still
is that, when the minister makes the announcement that premiums have
risen, he always refers to ‘average premium rises’. This is
interesting. Constituents who contact my electorate office often
report to me that the yearly premium rises they are experiencing are
more in the order of 20 per cent, as opposed to the minister’s
announcement, for example, of a seven per cent ‘average’ premium
rise.
How can this be the case? I undertook some
investigation to find out. People are insistent when they talk about
anything that affects the family budget. They come in and try to
explain to their local member just what is impacting on the budget.
They have taken me through these numbers. We find that there is some
trickery involved in the calculation of ‘average’ premium rises.
Health insurers manage to increase some
premiums well above this figure of seven per cent by simply lowering
the price of other products that they have on offer. When you look
into this, you see that most of these products that fall in price
generally correlate with those which are either defunct or,
alternatively, closed to new members. That certainly does have a
direct impact. That does not seem to matter to the minister though.
He is happy to get out the rubber stamp and the big black pen, tick
it off and stamp the page—and off we go again with another one of
those successive premium rises, all of which have occurred on his
watch. With premiums rising on the one hand, the government then
wonders why, on the other hand, people who do not make claims on
their insurance product start to consider leaving the system. I will
let the minister in on a little secret, one that he ought to have
regard for because I am sure that the people who visit my electorate
office are no different from the people who visit the electorate
offices of all members in this House: they believe they are being
ripped off by this system. They deserve better. They deserve
affordable and accessible private health insurance.
Not only do people deserve affordable and
accessible private health insurance; they also deserve affordable
and accessible access to medical services in general. The electorate
of Werriwa suffers from a shortage of GPs, something that I have
been campaigning on for some time. I have taken up many petitions
and spoken at many venues within the community on this. Why this has
come about and why it is a central point of concern for many young
families in my area is that the current ratio of GPs to the
population in Werriwa stands at one GP to 1,700 head of population.
This is a huge difference from the federal Department of Health and
Ageing’s recommendation of one GP to 1,000 people. Our ratio is
significantly above that. Our area in the outer western metropolitan
area of
Sydney has a high density of families. The people in our area have a
high need to call upon a GP’s services, yet we find ours is one of
the worst affected areas in having one GP to 1,700 head of
population.
In
Sydney’s new growing suburbs, health care is extremely important.
Not only is it extremely important to the people in those new
suburbs; it is also at the front of the minds of all residents when
they are looking at the provision of services within their region or
suburb. It often gets back to the issue of the number of GPs that we
have available to administer health care—and we in my region are
particularly suffering as we try to attract GPs. Our residents,
particularly young families and the older residents in many of the
more established areas, are suffering because of this lack of GP
support.
One of the central reasons why people in my
electorate are suffering from the lack of GPs is the government’s
cut in the number of GP training positions back in 1996. They are
paying the price of the government’s obsession with cost over
service because they do not have reasonable access to a GP. The
residents of Kemps Creek,
Hoxton Park, Horningsea Park, Carnes Hill, Edmondson Park, Prestons
and Austral are in areas where we have a critical health care
workforce shortage. It is front and centre in the minds of local
families.
While I am on the record in this place as
welcoming the investment that the government has made in the
development of the new medical school on the Campbelltown campus of
the
University of Western Sydney, I say this will not solve the problems
that the residents are experiencing now. I am sure that the school
will produce doctors of a very high quality. I am confident that we
will induce a number of these graduating medical practitioners, once
they have seen and experienced the advantages that we have to offer
them in Western Sydney, to stay and service the south-west of
Sydney. But we will not see an improvement in our GP-population
ratio for at least another seven to eight years if we are simply
going to rely upon doctors coming out of the University of Western
Sydney’s medical school to simply go out and, as is expected,
resolve the issues as to our doctor shortage.
I would like to raise another health issue of
concern that faces many residents in my electorate and, no doubt,
other electorates. It is also the result of the government’s
decision to prioritise cost over health care. As with its cuts to GP
training places in 1996, on coming to office this government made a
decision which abolished the Commonwealth dental health scheme. This
government decided to cut $100 million out of public dentistry—there
was $100 million cut from a program that the government is on record
as saying worked. Despite the provisions of the Constitution, this
government decided that the Commonwealth no longer had a
responsibility for dental health care. It left the state governments
to pick up the tab and it continues to deny that it has any role or
responsibility in providing dental services to our communities. The
Constitution says differently, of course, and it is about time that
the government accepted its responsibility and restored a public
dental health program. It is about time that it acted to cut the
lists of people waiting for dental treatment in the public health
system. It is about time that the government stopped the situation
that only those who have private health insurance can afford dental
services.
People should not be forced to think about
pulling their own teeth out simply because they cannot afford to see
a dentist to have their teeth fixed. There are many elderly people
who come and visit my office. People should not have to consider
using superglue to fix their own dentures because the government
wants to deny the responsibility that was given to it under the
Australian Constitution. This government and the current minister
need to stop the obsession with cost and dedicate the same time, the
same energy and the same commitment to worrying about the health
care of the people of this country. Care should be first and
foremost in the minds of those deciding the future of health policy,
because health policy should always be about people, not just about
cost. This government needs to act and act now. (Time expired)
Return
to Speeches Menu.
