Dr WOOLDRIDGE (Health and Family Services) (6:27 PM) —These amendments are completely unnecessary and shows that the Labor Party and the two shadow ministers have not bothered to read the legislation that we have put into the parliament. The Health Care (Appropriation) Bill 1998 states very clearly on page 3, clause 6(1):

A grant of financial assistance under section 4 is not payable to a State unless the Minister is satisfied that the State is adhering to the principles set out in subsection (2).

Clause 6(2) then goes on to say:

Eligible persons are to be given the choice to receive, free of charge as public patients, health and emergency services of a kind or kinds that are currently, or were historically, provided by hospitals.

So that is totally provided for in the legislation. The second point is that not only is it redundant but it is destructive and shows again that the opposition does not understand health. The section in the amendments which refers to clause 6, page 4 says:

It shall be a condition of the grant that a State not impose compulsory hospital charges for inpatient care on eligible persons . . .

That totally is counter to everything that is happening in the health system at the moment. The fact is that there is a shift from in-hospital to out-of-hospital services, there is increased use of hospital in the home, and this clause has been put in so that people who in the future have services in the community that are currently being provided in the home are not disadvantaged. To limit this amendment, as the opposition does, to just in-patient services leaves the way open for people in the future who are having community based services to be charged, which is completely the opposite of what it is intending to do.

There is only one reason for this amendment: the opposition wants to put out a tawdry little press release at the end of this saying, `The government voted against ruling out charges for hospitals.' We will vote against it for two reasons. Firstly, it is already in the legislation. Secondly, these amendments are positively harmful. We have actually beaten you to it. We have put a press release out around the gallery saying that you are a goose, that you do not understand the legislation, that you have not read it, that it is already in there and that you do not understand what is happening in hospitals. Along with your confusion the other day over what happened with the PBS and its demand effects, this is another example showing that you do not understand the health system.

I could reply to each and every one of the inaccuracies that exist in this legislation, but the suspension for dinner is coming up and it would take far more time than I have. In terms of the opposition's misrepresentation, no amount of scaring, no amount of misquoting the Treasurer (Mr Costello) and no amount of misrepresenting the situation will allow you to scare people because the fact is we have covered the bases. We have no desire to see people charged. We have covered it completely by having it in the legislation. This is just a further example of your not understanding the complexities of health and of your trying to make cheap political points out of this health care agreement. As a government, we have no intention of allowing you to do it. Quite frankly, this is too important an area in which to play politics. The government has made a fair dinkum attempt here. It is a generous one and it should be supported.