Additional comments by Liberal senators
1.1
This report is the third presented on the PPS reform process inquiry, the
first having been the report on the exposure draft of the main Bill, which was
tabled in March of this year.
1.2
The current inquiry was conducted in a little under a month from
referral by the Senate, continuing a pattern of undue haste and scant regard
for witnesses or for committee processes that has characterised all three
inquiries. Short inquiries are sometimes necessary for urgent reforms of a
limited nature, but this reform is large, exceedingly complex and has also been
several years in the making. Yet the Senate is expected to come to terms with
and approve this important legislation almost as an afterthought on the
Government's part.
1.3
Liberal Senators note the comments in the main report that the ability
of submitters and the committee to consider this highly technical bill has been
significantly constrained by the timeframe of the inquiry, and that as a result,
the committee has been forced 'to the extent possible, to examine the general
thrust of issues and to articulate a few of the major concerns in more detail'.
In other words, the main report is not comprehensive, and never could be in the
time allowed.
1.4
Liberal Senators hold grave misgivings about how this whole process has
been conducted. The time necessarily allowed for submitters with an interest in
the reforms in all three inquiries has been unreasonably short given the
complexity of the reforms. Further, it appears that the reform is being pushed
ahead while there are still significant unresolved issues, as is evidenced by
the significant flow of last minute correspondence to the committee about the
matter, a major supplementary submission about PMSI registrations having been
received as late as Friday afternoon, when the report must be tabled the next
business day.
1.5
Liberal Senators accept and understand that some stakeholders remain
opposed to the underlying policy of the reform, and there is little prospect
that their concerns could ever be addressed, even in an exhaustive inquiry.
However, in the view of Liberal Senators, there are significant unresolved
matters that do not fall into this category, with disagreement between
witnesses (eg: Lawyers and the Department) about the effect of substantive
provisions of the Bill. It borders on recklessness for the Government to insist
on passage of the Bill before all issues have been resolved to the point that
the committee could sign off on them with confidence. In the time allowed, the
committee cannot even be confident that all of the significant issues have been
identified, let alone resolved.
1.6
Liberal Senators understand the desire to have the Bill passed to create
legislative certainty, and also that not all States need to pass referral
legislation before the scheme can commence. Liberal Senators also understand
that many stakeholders are anxious to see the legislation in place so they can
embark on the difficult process of putting necessary information technology
support in place. However, this is a very significant reform and there are huge
financial implications for stakeholders. The costs of getting it wrong may be
significant. Liberal Senators would have preferred the process to have been
somewhat less pressured, to ensure the reform is as soundly thought through as
possible.
1.7
Liberal Senators also express their disappointment that the regulations
associated with this reform, which add much detail to the reform, have not yet been
released in their final form. While these could be scrutinised separately by
the Senate and the committee, it is not possible to assess the full impact of
the complete legislative scheme when the regulations are unavailable.
Recommendation 1
1.8
Liberal Senators repeat their recommendation from the August 2009
report, that the government and the department release the revised draft
regulations for public consultation as soon as possible.
1.9
Liberal Senators particularly wish to place on record their thanks to all
of those who have given evidence to and made submissions to all three inquiries
in what are recognised as undeniably sub-optimum circumstances.
Senator Guy Barnett
Deputy Chair
Senator
Mary Jo Fisher
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page