Senator CHRIS EVANS (10:09 PM) —I agree with Senator Brown, but his arguments against Senator Harradine's amendment hold true of the whole bill. While I think it is a good argument, as I say, the government has not provided any modelling for any of this, so I do not think it takes us much further. Yes, we have another amendment that is uncosted, unmodelled, with no real idea of impact—but then the whole bill is like that. So I have given up on that argument. That has had no weight and no success in moving the Senate more generally.

I do not want to spend too much time on this because, quite frankly, I think it is a very modest minor amendment that does not go to the heart of this bill nor to the heart of the problems of private health insurance. I think the sort of thing that Senator Harradine talked about in terms of sanction is more of a minor inconvenience to the funds. Nevertheless, that is not really essential debate on the bill. I do not think we ought to delay the committee stage too long on that issue. I think there are much bigger issues in terms of the bill.

I think it is unfortunate that we have not got any costings out of the parliamentary secretary in relation to this measure, nor in relation to the undertakings given to Senator Harradine. They obviously add to the total cost of this package; they add to the money that the government is throwing at getting this package through the parliament—and I think it is not unreasonable for us to expect to have that properly costed and be put before the parliament. But that is obviously not going to happen.

Again, I do not want to labour the point, but it is more money thrown at the problem in order to get the bill passed, because that is the political imperative. There is no health imperative, there is no economic imperative. It is just, `Throw money at the problem, get it fixed, get it passed; if we need to give $25 million for coordinated care, we'll throw that in as well; when you've got $1.5 billion, what's another $25 million? It's all big numbers and it's all got out of control, and there's no basis for any of it, there's no modelling for any of it—so, what the heck, what's a bit more? But the failure of the government to provide any costing on that I think is a sad reflection.

I just want to make this clear: the Labor Party is most concerned about gaps. They are a major issue. They need to be treated seriously. They need to be treated more seriously than was possible, it seems, in a couple of hours of discussions this afternoon in order to get a compromise to get the bill passed. What we proposed—and what the Democrats and the Greens proposed—was a proper look at these issues; that we would not pass this bill until we dealt with the gaps issue, until we dealt with the premium rises issue and had a coordinated thorough look at how to get good health policy. What we have instead is a slipshod bill that is throwing money at the problem, throwing money at people who do not need support, and denying that health support to people who do need it.

As I say, I do not want to labour this issue any longer. I do not disagree with the objectives; I think they are worthy. It is a major issue that needs to be tackled. I do not think this amendment goes anywhere near far enough in dealing with that. But that is not to say that it is not worth supporting, in the sense that it is at least giving some recognition to the problem and some recognition to the fact that we need to do much more about gaps and premiums. But, as I say, we will not solve those problems tonight because there is no serious attempt to deal with those problems in this bill.