

- Title
MOTIONS
Chronic Disease Dental Scheme
- Database
Senate Hansard
- Date
21-03-2012
- Source
Senate
- Parl No.
43
- Electorate
- Interjector
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT
- Page
2473
- Party
AG
- Presenter
- Status
Final
- Question No.
- Questioner
- Responder
- Speaker
Di Natale, Sen Richard
- Stage
- Type
- Context
MOTIONS
- System Id
chamber/hansards/34dcc858-84ef-4fe3-9144-f6f97af26110/0126
Previous Fragment Next Fragment
-
Hansard
- Start of Business
- MOTIONS
-
BILLS
- Indirect Tax Laws Amendment (Assessment) Bill 2012
- Fair Work Amendment (Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industry) Bill 2011 [2012]
- Broadcasting Services Amendment (Regional Commercial Radio) Bill 2011 [2012]
- Insurance Contracts Amendment Bill 2012
- Excise Amendment (Reducing Business Compliance Burden) Bill 2011, Customs Amendment (Reducing Business Compliance Burden) Bill 2011
- Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011
- MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST
- MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
- QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
- DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
-
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
-
Defence Exercises
(Ludlam, Sen Scott, Carr, Sen Bob) -
Carbon Pricing
(Edwards, Sen Sean, Wong, Sen Penny) -
Infrastructure
(Sterle, Sen Glenn, Carr, Sen Kim) -
Member for Dobell
(Fierravanti-Wells, Sen Concetta, Carr, Sen Kim) -
Murray-Darling Basin
(Xenophon, Sen Nick, Conroy, Sen Stephen) -
Military Justice
(Johnston, Sen David, Evans, Sen Christopher) -
Harmony Day
(Furner, Sen Mark, Lundy, Sen Kate)
-
Defence Exercises
- QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
- QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
- PETITIONS
- COMMITTEES
- NOTICES
- COMMITTEES
- NOTICES
- BILLS
- MOTIONS
- DOCUMENTS
-
BILLS
-
Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2011
- Second Reading
-
In Committee
- Mason, Sen Brett
- Collins, Sen Jacinta
- Mason, Sen Brett
- Collins, Sen Jacinta
- Mason, Sen Brett
- Collins, Sen Jacinta
- Mason, Sen Brett
- Collins, Sen Jacinta
- Mason, Sen Brett
- Collins, Sen Jacinta
- Mason, Sen Brett
- Collins, Sen Jacinta
- Mason, Sen Brett
- Collins, Sen Jacinta
- Mason, Sen Brett
- Collins, Sen Jacinta
- Mason, Sen Brett
- Collins, Sen Jacinta
- Mason, Sen Brett
- Collins, Sen Jacinta
- Mason, Sen Brett
- Collins, Sen Jacinta
- Mason, Sen Brett
- Collins, Sen Jacinta
- Third Reading
- Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012
- Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-2012, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2011-2012
-
Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2011
- FIRST SPEECH
- BILLS
- BUDGET
- BILLS
- ADJOURNMENT
- DOCUMENTS
Page: 2473
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria) (15:46): Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a short statement.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for two minutes.
Senator DI NATALE: I acknowledge that there have been some dentists who have been audited and found to be non-compliant for legitimate reasons. In some cases services were billed but not provided. They are not the subject of this motion.
A number of dentists have provided services to patients in good faith and good clinical outcomes were achieved with both the dentists and the patients being satisfied with the treatment. Unfortunately, due to simple technical and administrative errors, these people have been caught up in audits, in some cases totalling several hundred thousand dollars. Obviously we do not support any behaviour that involves deliberately defrauding the Commonwealth; in those cases the Medicare officers have every right to pursue those dentists. However, we do not support cases where dentists who provided services—and often bulk-billed patients in need and treated patients who had not had treatment for many years and required urgent dental care—are forced to repay Medicare when both the patients and dentists are satisfied with the treatment.
It is important to note that the basis for noncompliance in these instances has been not providing a treatment summary to the GP or not providing a written quote. Neither of those things affects the clinical outcome in this situation. It is untenable and unjustifiable for Medicare to be pursuing those dentists, largely and most significantly because they have never supported this scheme and they do not want this scheme to continue. It appears to be an effort to undermine the scheme and tarnish the name of many good dentists. (Time expired)