Senator BROWN (9:41 PM) —The difficulty with Senator Harradine's response is that it does come down to a supposition that there is going to be improved participation in health insurance because of the amendment he has made. The opposition has already made the point that one outcome is likely to be higher premiums, which has exactly the opposite effect because it would see more people shedding their private insurance. We are in the situation here of not knowing and that means, to some degree, flying by the seat of our pants.

It is a very important matter, because the alternative that the opposition and the Greens have been putting quite strongly is that it would be better for the $1.7 billion to be going into the public health system. This would have a very clear impact for the good on the medical health services delivery to the Australian populace as a whole.

The problem with Senator Harradine's amendment is that while it appears on the face of it that there may be some beneficial effect in increasing the participation in health insurance, beyond that we have nothing to go by. We are being asked to give up the alternative of a much improved public health system—if the money went in that direction—in the hope that there will be some degree of improvement in participation rates in private health insurance.

We have already heard Senator Harradine say that it would be traitorous for doctors to increase fees on the back of this measure. But there is nothing in this amendment or in the legislation to stop that happening. Doctors—and I am one of them—are human beings and past practice has shown that some of them at least will move to take monetary advantage from a system that allows them to do so. The only way we can stop that is by regulating. I would be much happier as a member of the medical profession if that were an outcome that we were entertaining here tonight. But we are not. Therefore, what the argument for this measure comes down to is that it sounds like a good idea.

One thing I would like to know, which might help the committee in deciding whether this idea is going to be effectual, is what the participation rate in South Australia has been compared with other states. Has the participation rate in South Australia improved in recent times because of the availability of the no gap or known gap alternatives or hasn't it? If we could have those figures, it would give us some indication—even though it would be broad brush—as to whether in effect offering that policy option generally to the Australian populace is going to make a difference.