Mr ROBERT BROWN(10.22 p.m.) —Could I say in connection with this question that while I do not deny the normal courtesies that we expect and receive from the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge), the soft and soothing tone used by the minister and the other minister who has been here during the consideration in detail stage of the bill does very little to allay my apprehension and concerns about what is going to happen to Medicare offices in my electorate and in the wider Newcastle region. There is a great deal of concern in the community about what is taking place.

I congratulate the member for Dobell (Mr Lee) for identifying the problems and our concerns with the legislation and raising questions about them. For a Senate estimates committee to be advised that 35 offices will close this year, 51 next year and a total of 84 over three years and then the minister to say that, while it is possible to be exact about how many offices will close, he does not know at this stage which ones they will be is just inconceivable.

I want to know what is going to happen to the Medicare offices in my electorate and the Newcastle region in particular. There is a question about the whole effectiveness of the service delivery of Medicare—one of the most fundamental areas of concern for people. For people to have to be dependent upon the adequacy of public transport, where practically no public transport exists, to access the offices that may continue to operate or to access unidentified pharmacies or to use part of their refund to use the postal service to secure that refund is simply not good enough.

I would be interested to know whether all the pharmacies in my electorate are going to become subagencies of Medicare. If they are not, what patronage is going to be involved in identifying those that will. The people who have to claim a refund will then presumably be forced to go into a particular pharmacy. If the minister can tell me which ones they are going to be, I think I might take out a share in them at this stage. If people have to go to particular pharmacies to get their refunds, or to arrange for the processing of their refunds, obvious advantages will accrue to those particular pharmacies.

If there is not going to be patronage involved it means that all pharmacies will act as subagents of some kind. When you have that amount of duplication—not only duplication of administrative processes but also duplication of necessary security because they will presumably be carrying money—

Mr McGauran —No, it's credited to people's accounts.

Mr ROBERT BROWN —If it is credited directly to their account then we can chop out the need for additional security in connection with the funds. The duplication of administration means that the apparent savings that may accrue to Medicare as a result of these arrangements will not necessarily come about.

Those people who are most dependent upon the refund are often people on low incomes and people who can ill-afford to go to the additional expense of accessing those centres. There has been not a brilliant and not a complete network of Medicare offices but certainly a network of Medicare offices which made it possible for most people to access that service. They are the people who are apprehensive. Many of the pharmacists are apprehensive. The people who are employed by Medicare in those offices are apprehensive. I think it is high time the whole question was clarified, made transparent and laid out on the table so that we can be sure that the sort of patronage that this government displayed in relation to the gun buyback proposal will not be extended to Medicare as well.

Clause agreed to.

Schedule 1.