Senator TAMBLING (5:29 PM) —The Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 comes about in response to recommendations of the Productivity Commission in its report No. 57 entitled Private health insurance which, I remind the Senate, was a report of February 1997—nearly 2½ years ago. Of course, a lot has happened in that interim 2½-year period, particularly with regard to the development of policy and the conduct of many inquiries already by various committees of the Senate—certainly before the estimates committees—associated with the detailed consideration of the legislation last December that went to the heart of private health insurance.

We also on that occasion in December last year foreshadowed these particular amendments that are now before us. It is interesting to note that support has been attracted quite publicly from a number of organisations: the Australian Consumers Association, the Australian Health Care Association, the Consumer Health Forum, the National Seniors Association, the Australian Day Care Association, the Australian Private Hospitals Association and Medibank Private. Across the ambit, the various groups that are affected and represented have certainly all endorsed this particular legislation in very strong terms.

I appreciate the comments that have been made here today by other senators. We will have regard to the various comments that have been made.

This bill is a product reform bill designed to make the private health insurance product more attractive to consumers. It has been roundly endorsed by, as I said a few moments ago, a number of consumer and other health associated groups and organisations. The bill builds on the major hospital reform measures contained in the Health Legislation Bill (No. 2) 1997, and complements the federal government's 30 per cent rebate for private health insurance.

This bill amends the National Health Act 1953, and concerns itself with reforms in six key areas. Parts 1 to 5 of schedule 1 deal with five of these reforms. Part 1 deals with the reforms to allow registered health funds to offer discounted premiums in specific circumstances. Part 2 deals with reforms to allow health funds to offer loyalty bonuses. Part 3 deals with reforms to pre-existing ailment conditions to allow for waiting periods to be extended in particular circumstances. Part 4 deals with reforms to allow health funds to cover the cost to fund members of pharmaceutical benefits prescribed while as patients in hospital. Part 5 deals with reforms to extend payments by health funds for procedures undertaken in approved procedures facilities to promote the most appropriate type of care in the most appropriate settings.

Schedule 2 covers the consequential amendments to both the Health Insurance Act 1973 and the National Health Act 1953, which are required to implement appropriately the schemes outlined in the bill. Schedule 3 allows for the transfer of the rates of contribution rule change provisions from the minister to the Private Health Insurance Administration Council prior to the repeal of these provisions in the medium term. Schedule 3 also amends ministerial discretion with respect to fund rule changes, requiring that decisions in relation to a particular fund rule change include regard to the effects of proposed change on the industry as a whole as well as the effects on consumers and the individual fund.

I have noted that Senator Harradine has raised issues relating to elderly, chronically ill people, particularly with palliative, rehabilitation and psychiatric care. Approved procedures facilities will provide a substitute for in-hospital care in an out-of-hospital setting. As such, approved procedures facilities are not covered under hospital tables where it remains compulsory for health funds to provide coverage for in-hospital palliative, psychiatric and rehabilitation care. The excluded services are treated like any other out-of-hospital service. The exclusion of compulsory coverage for these services from the provision of part 5 simply reflects the fact that, while such care is a substitute for in-hospital care, it is taking place as an out-of-hospital procedure.

The government will certainly look carefully, in the time available to us, at the amendments that Senator Harradine has suggested. As Senator Harradine mentioned, it is not proposed at the moment to proceed to committee today, therefore giving us that opportunity.

I would comment that the second reading amendment as circulated by Senator Margetts really is a rehash of a similar amendment that she proposed last year in a similar area. As I mentioned in my opening comments, this particular issue has been the subject of tremendous debate and discussion in the community, in this parliament and in this Senate since the Productivity Commission's report of February 1997. We certainly mentioned that in December last year in association with the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate bill. I remind the Senate that on 10 December last year the Senate opposed that motion by the Greens on the voices, and I would hope that it will do so again today.

The government has a mandate to proceed with private health insurance reform, and that is clearly set out in our proposals associated with this legislation. We do not need another expensive inquiry just to please Senator Margetts or a few people who perhaps have not had the occasion to appear—as many have done—in so many of the inquiries in other areas. Senator Lees has been complaining about our alleged obsession with private health insurance. I thought that would speak for itself, particularly with regard to Senator Margetts's proposed amendment.

Other detailed amendments have been distributed this afternoon by the ALP and by the Australian Democrats—although I should say I do not think we have yet seen the Democrats' amendments. Obviously the preparation of these amendments has been log jammed. I remind the Senate that both the Labor Party and the Democrats have had a full opportunity since this debate concluded in the House of Representatives on 10 March this year to have those amendments ready, rather than putting them on our tables here at nearly 4.30 this afternoon, therefore giving us one hour for consideration. It is indeed unfortunate that in order to give this matter proper consideration it will be necessary to commend consideration of the bill in committee to a later date.

Amendment not agreed to.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Motion (by Senator Tambling) proposed:

That consideration of this bill in committee of the whole be made an order of the day for a later hour.