Senator NEAL(9.58 a.m.) —The opposition is opposed to exempting the Health Insurance Amendment Bill No. 2 from the cut-off. There seems to be developing on the government side of this chamber a general view that, whenever they are sufficiently disorganised to comply with the cut-off rule, they will automatically receive an exemption. In fact, an exemption should be applied only where there are special circumstances that justify it. There has been a general acceptance that, where a bill is a budget bill, it should be exempted. But in this case this is not a budget bill, and that principle does not apply.

If you look at this bill, you will see that there are good arguments to say that the general rule that requires a period of time to elapse between the introduction of a bill and it being debated well applies, in that it has fairly substantial effects on one group in the community—medical students, interns and trainee doctors. It also has a substantial effect on a large part of the community, that is, those people who make use of health services in Australia.

This bill has been rushed in. Senator Woods tried to tell me that as a result of this bill the community will get a better health service, but that, sadly, is not the case. As our report pointed out, this bill was intended to deal with the maldistribution of health services across Australia. There has been an acceptance across both sides of the chamber that for some period of time there has been an oversupply of doctors. This has been accepted notwithstanding the fact that the department of health is unable to show any direct causal connection between the increase in Medicare usage per capita and the increase in the number of doctors. But it seems to be the case, and the opposition accepts—it was the view of the Labor Party while in government—that there is a direct connection.

The difficulty with this solution is that the maldistribution between rural areas and metropolitan areas is not resolved by this bill. In fact, there was a clear indication by a large number of people who put submissions to the Senate community affairs committee, and it was also the view of a number of state representatives, that this situation will make the supply of doctors in rural areas much worse. There was a statement made by the Premier of Western Australia just this week which indicated exactly that view. The fact is that this move will continue to lessen the supply of rural doctors, both in general practice and in hospitals.

It was accepted by a large number of people who made submissions to the committee that many doctors, between the period when they do their year of internship and when they may go into general practice, often will go out into country areas—

Senator Woods —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. Senator Neal is debating the substantive issues of the bill. She will get plenty of chances later on to debate the issues and matters contained in the bill. What we are discussing and debating now is whether there should be an exemption from the cut-off. This is a question of whether it should be, if you like, accorded urgency. The reasons why it should be accorded urgency are what you should be addressing, not the substance of the bill. You will have plenty of time later on, and I am sure we will have a very prolonged debate about it. So why don't you stop debating the bill and look at the reasons why this should be exempt from the cut-off? That is what we are debating now.

Senator Faulkner —On the point of order: it is perfectly proper for any senator in a debate of this nature to canvass the reasons why a bill should or should not be exempted from this order of the Senate. No senator can mount that case without, obviously, touching on the substantive issues involved and the urgency of dealing with them. Although it is unusual in the life of this parliament, because the opposition has been very generous, as opposed to what the coalition did when they were in opposition in relation to exemptions from the cut-off motion, I think you would find that the precedent has been well established, Mr Acting Deputy President, that the sorts of remarks that Senator Neal is making in support of her case are absolutely in order. I ask you to rule the time- wasting and filibustering point of order by Senator Woods out of order.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ferguson) —I have listened carefully to the arguments from both sides. I do not believe there is a point of order.

Senator NEAL —Thank you for your ruling, Mr Acting Deputy President. Essentially, there is no reason to rush this bill through, on the basis that it does not substantially deal with the problem that it set out to deal with. In fact, it may well worsen the position. It also has some unfortunate consequences for the group of people I mentioned earlier—that is, medical students, people who have already started their course, interns and doctors in training. This group of people, in good faith, started their course—a long period of training, generally up to eight years—on the assumption that when they completed that training, without having done any extra general practitioner training of two to three years, they would be able to receive a Medicare provider number and practise in the general community.

This bill substantially changes that. It changes it when they have already started their course and when they have made plans based on the circumstances that existed when they entered university. In particular, this makes the bill unfair and inequitable. It was also pointed out to us in evidence provided by the department of health that the bill is to take effect on 1 November, even though it may not be passed until some time later. Accordingly, their view is that anyone who receives a Medicare provider number post 1 November this year, when the bill comes into effect, will be retrospectively affected and that Medicare number will be taken off them. I think that is a rather extraordinary, unfair and harsh result for those people who have found themselves in those circumstances.

I am a bit surprised at Senator Woods. I would have thought that, because he is a practising doctor, he would have had some sympathy for the plight of those medical students. You would know very well the amount of commitment required and the careful planning of their careers that is needed in order to comply with all the requirements of practising as a doctor. I must confess that it disappoints me that he is so unsympathetic towards that group of people.

The opposition is concerned about the way in which this bill is being rushed through, the failure to properly consider the bill and to deal with all those people who have an interest in the area. It has not been properly considered. In fact, in their wish to rush this bill through, the government refused to allow the bill to be referred to a committee by the House of Representatives and therefore to have it considered there. Although we did have the benefit of an inquiry through the Senate community affairs committee, that was for less than one month. I do not believe— and I think a lot of people in the community do not believe—that it was an adequate amount of time to deal with the matter.

The last issue in the sorry tale of the procedural unfairness and inadequacy of the way this bill has been dealt with is the fact that the AMA—I am sure Senator Woods is a member of that organisation—is a body that you would think is very much involved in the process of how doctors are trained and the requirements set out for Medicare provider numbers. That organisation was even denied the right to appear before the community affairs committee.

Despite the fact that, traditionally, there has not been a great accord between the doctors union and the opposition, certainly, in these circumstances of having been dealt with unfairly, as they were, we strongly supported their right to speak. But it represents the way that this government believes that legislation which adversely affects members of the community can be rushed through and that they do not need to have proper regard for the issues of fairness and consultation.