Senator CONROY (2:54 PM) —My question is addressed to Senator Coonan, the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer. Can the minister confirm that the Australian Government Actuary provided the government with a report on 30 May this year on UMP's liabilities, which stated:

Given the government was told in May that tort law reform may change the IBNR levy, why did you fail to ask the Government Actuary to go back and calculate the consequences to the levy of tort law reform in New South Wales? Can the minister confirm that this report was presented to cabinet?

Senator COONAN (Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer) —We really have to go back and educate Senator Conroy a bit about how this all worked. First of all, the actuary's report was required as part of the legislation that the Senate passed and that the Labor Party voted for, so I would have thought that they would know the relevance of the actuary's report to the calculation of the IBNR and which medical indemnity providers should be included in it. That is the purpose of the actuary's report: to go to the Minister for Health and Ageing so that the health department can then calculate the IBNR, strike the levy and administer it.

So the actuarial reports were provided, seriatim, by UMP, who had the information about their long-tail liabilities. It was provided to the Government Actuary to check. It was presented, as I understand it, to the minister for health. It certainly was not presented to me. The relevance to any ongoing situation with recalculation of the levy was, in fact, announced by me in a press release—in August, I think—where it was said, as clearly as can be, in clear writing, that the levy would be recalculated as tort law reform comes on stream.

The tort law reform that was taken into account in the original calculations was the first tranche of the New South Wales reforms. Obviously, not all tort law reform has uniformly come on stream on the same date. Clearly, the movement from the long tail in claims made will depend on when they are filed. Some of them were filed before tort law reform and some of them will be filed after tort law reform. The reduction of the long-tail liability is balanced by a claim when it finally comes to be paid. The relevance of recalculating the IBNR amount is clearly understood by the government. It was clearly foreshadowed in my press release and it was clearly taken into account, insofar as tort law reform was relevant, in the actuary's report.

Senator CONROY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. As the minister has stated in a press release and yesterday in the Senate:

The question is: what was there to prevent the government back in May from asking the Government Actuary to work out estimated levy changes that included changed circumstances such as tort law reform? The New South Wales reforms have been there before then—you know that. Why did you not make the call then?

Senator COONAN (Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer) —Senator Conroy, your ignorance about this matter is graphic, because tort law reform has not proceeded uniformly—not even in New South Wales. It has actually been implemented in tranches, and even now there is still some tort law reform to go in some other states. The relevance of tort law reform is clearly contemplated by the government—announced by the government. The levy will be recalculated each year. It will take some time for the tort law reforms to kick in, obviously because there are a lot of claims in the system that have to be paid that also relate to the time of the levy in the tail before the tort law reforms commence. Surely you are not really suggesting that retrospectively we should be impacting on people who have had rights up to a certain date. Is that seriously what Senator Conroy is suggesting? You can be assured that, as the dates become relevant and the claims match the changes, it will be taken into account. (Time expired)