Senator McKIERNAN (11:47 AM) —The Senate is discussing the Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1998 and associated bills. It is a sad moment for the Senate to be discussing such poorly targeted legislation—legislation which was conceived during an election campaign when the government was in some difficulty in making election promises, legislation which the government now seeks to gain some political advantage from in the forthcoming election in New South Wales. This bill is not about health care. This bill is blatant politicking on behalf of a government that does not care.

This bill will do nothing to resolve the problem that was headlined in the Perth Sunday Times on 29 November this year, just a couple of weeks ago: `97 die awaiting surgery'. Ninety-seven people died awaiting surgery. The $1.7 billion that the government will hand out to people who do not need it, like me on the salary that I have, would be better served going to alleviate the difficulties of Western Australians and their relatives who cannot get hospital treatment. But, no. Mr Howard and Mr Wooldridge are seeking to put money in my pocket. I am on $100,000 a year. I have private health insurance. I do not need an incentive in the form of a tax rebate to remain in health insurance. I have the money to afford it.

Why are you doing this? Mr Howard, why are you spending $900 million in giving tax rebates to people earning more than $70,000 a year? This is absolutely stupid legislation, particularly so when you get headlines such as: `97 die awaiting surgery'. It is even worse when you get a headline such as the one that appeared on the front page of the Australian newspaper on Friday, 27 November 1998: `Health funds reap $300m fee bonanza'. We are going to put more publicly funded money in their direction. What has gone wrong?

There is obviously a major difficulty in the Prime Minister's office, the cabinet office and in the government party room if they continue to proceed with this bill and not either send it back for a rethink or accept some amendments on the floor at the committee stage. I understand that your party, Mr Acting Deputy President Watson, is not going to negotiate on that. This is absolutely criminal activity on behalf of the government—propping up health funds which actually need a great deal of scrutiny as to how they operate.

Who said they need scrutiny? The Private Health Insurance Ombudsman's annual report, tabled very recently in this place, said they need scrutiny. Complaints against the private health insurers are up by 60 per cent on the previous year. One can understand that when you see the full-page advertisements that appear in the media. I quote from the West Australian newspaper of Saturday, 28 November:

An open letter to Members of Federal Parliament

This is from one Michael Gurry, Managing Director of HBF, Hospital Benefits Fund of Western Australia. Mr Gurry addresses me and my colleagues saying:

Members of Federal Parliament

I write on behalf of the 1,056,310 electors and their families in Western Australia who have private health insurance to ask why some of you refuse to allow them a 30% refund . . .

Who gave Mr Gurry the authority to put that letter in on behalf of me and my family as members of a private health fund? Neither he, his organisation nor the individual fund which I am a member of consulted me about putting a letter like that in. Mr Gurry went further, though, he wrote direct letters to members of parliament. He sent a letter by way of fax to me—and, I guess, to my other parliamentary colleagues—on 26 November 1998. He said:

Dear Senator McKiernan

I am writing on behalf of the 830,000 members of the Hospital Benefit Fund of Western Australia to express their concern at the attacks the Labor Party is making on private health insurance.

I read the Hansard from the other place, and I did not see any attacks on private health insurance. Perhaps the reason my comments are toned the way they are is because I am replying directly to Mr Gurry about what he did in putting forward that letter to me. I wrote back to him on the same day asking him to confirm the membership. I quote from my letter:

Your fax says 830,000 members, but the annual report of the Private Health Insurance Administration Council suggests you have a total membership (hospital and ancillary) of 392,489 at June 1998.

I asked him which was the true figure. A week later, Mr Gurry responded by saying:

I confirm HBF does have 830,000 individual members. HBF classifies all individuals covered by HBF as members.

The babies, the infirm—everybody is supposed to be a member according to him. The letter goes on:

The figures referred to in the PHIAC report for June 1998 are for Health Insurance policies not coverage.

For your information HBF has 788,000 Health members and 42,000 General Insurance members.

Mr Gurry is putting forward absolute lies, without the authority of his members, to me as a member of parliament. He asked for a copy of this speech, and I will ensure that he gets it. I hope that in the fullness of time the Department of Health and Aged Care or the Private Health Ombudsman will do something to bring some respectability into the way in which some of the health insurance funds operate. There are many that would appear to be lining their own pockets at the expense of those insured.

Earlier this year, I, like many others in the community, following the last round of increases, gave very real consideration to whether or not I would remain as a member of my fund. As I said in my earlier comments, I can afford to be in it. On the salary that I earn, I can afford to retain coverage. The reason I considered dropping out was the ever increasing cost of the insurance. This particular bill that is before us now—giving away something like $1.7 billion of taxpayers' money—does nothing to address those ever increasing premiums that I and other members of health funds have to pay.

The bill does nothing—as previous speakers have said—to address the biggest problem associated with private health insurance, and that is the gap. It does absolutely nothing to address the gap difficulties. Senator West, giving the most recent of the excellent contributions from this side of the chamber, outlined some of the finer details on that and, rather than use the time of the chamber now, I refer people to Senator West's and Senator Faulkner's excellent recent contributions on this. There were other contributions as well.

Senator Forshaw interjecting—

Senator McKIERNAN —And Senator Forshaw also made some comments, as I recall. The gap is the major problem associated with the health insurance industry in Australia today, yet we have the government coming into this place presenting legislation which does nothing to address it.

The final thing I want to talk about in the limited time that I have imposed on myself—and that we, on this side of the chamber, have imposed in order to progress the legislation—is the letters that I have received from my constituents in Western Australia. I am quite pleased to receive letters such as those. I am very disappointed to receive letters from doctors, specialists and professors which are rote letters, probably drafted in a public relations office in the Hospital Benefit Fund. I expect a little bit better from professional people than that. The Hospital Benefit Fund have been the main leaders of the campaign in Western Australia, and that is a bit disappointing. All of the individuals who have written to me have got a response. Some of them have asked for copies of my speech and, indeed, those who have asked will get a copy of it. I am very disappointed, as I said, that learned and highly educated people should just take form letters and send them on. The campaign just has not had an effect. They have wasted their time and their energy in sending these letters through.

It is a crying disgrace that the funds have used the elderly in our society. I have got great sympathy for those who are on pensions who do continue to hold health insurance, who do—as they said in their letters—go without meals in order to keep up their payments because it is something they have always done. The funds have got to be condemned for using people in the way they have used those in Western Australia.

I would hope, whether this bill passes or does not pass, or whether it passes in an amended form, that the funds themselves sit back and have a look at their own conduct in this whole thing. The way they have managed themselves in order to line their own pockets, in order to get an increase in membership for private hospital cover of a mere 2.7 per cent—from 30.3 per cent to 33 per cent coverage—is not to their credit. It is appalling what they have done. One would hope that they will learn something from this whole escapade. Perhaps next year, when the parliament has more time to look at them in detail, there might not be the damning reports from the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman that we have seen this year.

Debate (on motion by Senator Tambling) adjourned.