100
PRME uAIVNISTE
PRIME MINISTER'S PRESS CONFERENCE, CANBERRA, 27 May 1976
This is basically an opportunity to enable you to ask
questions of myself or Mr Hunt or Mr Ellicott, on the law
of this particular matter..
The Government was advised, as I indicated in the Parliament
this morning, in a joint opinion, that indicated that
continued payments to the States for the purposes of the
hospital. agreements would not be valid because the agreements
had not been drawn up in conformity with. the Act that
had been passed through the Federal Parliament. And this
concerns-us, because quite obviously the Commonwealth needs
to meet its obligations, there is an understand to pay half,
under the present arrangements of the costs of running the
major hospitals in the States, and we're advised that because
of the joint opinion that has been provided by the Attorney
and-the Solicitor-General, that the Auditor-General would not
authorise continuing payments under the present legislation.
So at the moment, special legislation is being drafted which
will cover: the situation until the 30 September, and in the
intervening Athe Minister with his colleagues, as I indicated
this morning, will be having discussions with the States about
continuing and on-going arrangements that would be within the
law. This is really only repeating what I said in question
time:-this morning, but I want to emphasise, that no
arrangements in relation to patients of any kind will be altered
by this situation that has been revealed, this inadequacy in
the law. I want to give the strongest possible assurance-that
nobody need be concerned about these particular matters. The
rights and interests of patients under Medibank will be protected,
and the emergency that we'll be. introducing will make quite
erOain of that. I can't give the full details of chac legislation
at'the moment, because it's still being drafted:-there are
a covple of aspects of it that need sorting out.-but the
Attorney and the appropriate Departments and the Treasury are
looking at those particular matters. But it's likely that it
will be done on the basis, as I . indicated again this morning,
of working out the sort of total payment that would go to
each State-in these areas over the next few months, and providing
legislation for that bulk sum to go to the States, for the
purposes required. / 2 i I
I I I
i I
j t
, STION: Prime Minister, you said in Parliament this morning that
the Attorney-General's department advised the department
of Socip. l Security last year that some of the hosoital.
agreements weren't in compliance with the Act. Why is it
that nothing was done until now about the acts
if you suspected, or someone suspected that they weren't
in compliance?
LD. MINISTER: I think you'd have to ask other people that. The
dates of the letter were in April, and there was an exchange
of letters involving April and May of 1975 a different
administration w.. as in power and it's a question as to whether
or not Ministers were aware of the situation. This situation
came to our knowledge yesterday or the day before within
the last couple of days. But we had not been advised of it
before then. I'm advised, but. I can't vouch for it, you
could ask the people concerned, that the previous Government
was aware of this situation., ut you also need to understand
that the legislation had been part of the double dissolution
procedures,-sdi ~ ny amendments to the legislation after it
had gone through the double dissolution procedures and the
Joint House would have enabled the Senate to be in the position
of blocking the legislation and the previous administration
might not have wanted to run that risk, and therefore decided
Sto do nothing about it. Now, I make no allegation about that
at all.. I've been given conflicting advice about whether
any Ministers in the previous administration knew of this
or whether they didn't. But departments were certainly aware
of it and there was an interchange of correspondence between
departmental officials in relation to it.
JESTION: Prime Minister, why has it taken so long to be brought to
your Pttention.? Are you saying there's been some degree
of inefficiency with regards to your ( inaudible) advisers?
LIMOINISTER: I make no criticism of that. at all. I quite specifically
asked the Attorney-General to look at these particular agrPements
as I indicated in the Parliament, because of one or two
statements that had been made by one or two States in relation
to the hospitals agreements. And so I said look at the provisions
of the agreements and see what powers lie in the hands of the
States, what powers lie in the hands of the Commonwealth, and
this was the result the Attorney came forward with-
IESTION: Prime Minister, what will be the effect on the States. Will
money at all stop flowing.
IME MINISTER: No, the emergency legislation is going to cover the
period until the 30 September so that money will continue to flow.
So that hospitals will be protected, but above all so that
patients will. be protected, and that's what were concerned
about, preminently,. and absolutely. We're going to make
quite certain of that. What is needed is for the Minister
for Health and his counterparts, properly advised by law
officers to get together with the States to sort out the
situation that's developed. But this is a matter between
Governments, hospitals, are going to be protected, and patients
are going to be protected. One of the reasons I wanted
to respond to the recuests for further information in these
particular matters was to give a complete and absolute guarantee
in relation to those n-tters.
QUESTION: Sir,-, when did you ask the Attorney-General to look. at
these agreements?
PRIME MINISTER:' Two days ago.
QUESTION: And what were the specific matters that prompted you to
do this?
PRIME MINSTER: They'd been some rather strange statements by a
Minister in New South Wales, and they'd been statements
by one or two other people also about the matters, a; fd
Swas those matters that prompted me to ask the Attorney
to look at the agreements?
QUESTION-And it only took them two days, the Attorney-General's
department, and the Solicitor-General's department. to come
uo with this?
PRIL MINISTER: ' They went straight to the law, straight to the agreements,
and demonstrated that lawyers can act swiftly uhen there's
P need to.
QU ION. Sir:-. are you going to release to us the advice upon which
you've made this decision, the advice of the Solicitor-General
and Attorney-Gereral.?
PRIME MINISTER: At this stage not, but I would be intending that a
copy of the joint opinion should go to the Premiers concerned.
And I think at this stage the decision to send a copy of
that joint opinion to them is the appropriate and oroper course..
QUESTION: Thy w-on't you release it to us?
PR. MINISTER: I think at this stage the appropriate thing is for
a cooy . to go to-the Premiers who are intimately involved.
It after all involves an agreement between Governments.
We've been given a certain opinion in strong terms, and
as to any future decision, well, at the moment, let me leave
0 that open. But certainly it should go to the Premiers
inthe first instance.
QUESTION: Prime Minister, you said you had had conflicting advice about
whether the Labor Ministers knew about this conflict in the Act
but you're saying that you feel that some Labor Ministers
a dikdn ow?
JRIME MINISTER: I would find it very difficult for them not to know,
but. I make no allegation about it. I don't know.
ΓΈ] QUESTION: Mr Fraser, will you be raising this specifically with Premier
Wran in a few minutes time?
RIME MINISTER: I'd imagine that he'd want to talk about it, yes.
UESTION: Can I ask Mr Ellicott where this conflict arises, what is the
N legal point? 1
_ II~
-IR ELLICOTT: Well section 30 of the Act requires that any agreement
that's. entered into should be substantially in accordance
with the heads of agrement. And those heads of agreement
are set out in the schedules of the Act. Well, fairly
clearly, when you look at the agreement and ask the question
whether it's substantially in accordance with the heads
of agreement, the answer is no. And I refer there to
head of agreement No. 3.
QUESTION: Mr Fraser, now that this situation has arisen, and I notice
that any emergency legislation will take only until
October 1, the new arrangements for Medibank, would you
expect to be: in a much more powerful position now in seeking
increased hospital charges in States.
? RIME MINISTER: I think we're in a very strong position in relation
to that anyway. Because what the Minister's proposing, what's
the Government's accepted and fully supports, and what our
Parties support, is that there'd be no change in standard ward
treatment which is the basic Medibank approach and standard
of health care. But then there are people, in . many different
categories who wish to insure either for intermediate
or private ward treatement and there are still 60 or
of people covered for that-throughout the Australian community.
Now,. the question of. increasing in public hospitals the
intermediate and private ward charges would have the result
of lessening the subsidies to those who wish to. pay something
else to upgrade their. bed treatment, and to enable their own
doctor to follow them into the hospital. And we felt
that there was no real justification on those who were
content with Medi1ank treatment, paying the levy, or on lower
incomes,, not paying the levy at all and the general run
of. taxpayers to provide additional subsidies to those seeking
intermediate or private ward treatment. Now I do believe
in some of the cor ents, been a real measure of misunderstanding
C in relation to this particular matter I think when the
Minister speaks with state Ministers, and when the matter
is properly understand, the logic of what we're proposing
will stand in its own right.
) UESTION: Prime Minster, that doesn't answer Mr Howard's question.
Does the new situation give you a stronger position to argue
with the States?
PRIME MINISTER: I suppose I'd have to say yes.
! UESTION: Prime Minister, can you give us some idea of what amounts
of money are involved here?
' RIME MINISTER: I wouldn't know, the Minister might know but you see
there are two questions there is also a view as to whether
Q past payments are valid, but otherwise you've got a question
of part of May, June, July, August, September. So you've
got several months of the year they'd be very considerable
sums...
P: INISTER: About $ 60 million a month.
QUESTTQN: Will . this legislation seek to make it retrospective.
back to'July 1, when Medibank started, in fact all the payments.
PRIME MINISTER:. No, the emergency legislation we'll be bringing
through will be providing for continued payments from now,
until-the 30 September. Other matters will be resting upon
negotiation and discussions between the Minister and his
State counterpart.
QUESTICN: So there is the chance that some of the States will owe.
the Comonwealth money, if it's considered that those payments
have been invalid?
PRIME MINISTER: I suppose in technical terms you could put it that
way, but you know,. one might judge the reality of that sort
of situation.
QU~ TION-: Sir, disregarding how much the former Minister may have
Lknow or not have known, are you surprised at all that whoever
gave that opinion to the Social Security Department in April
didn't give you that advice?
P-I E MINISTER: Earlier...?
QUESTION: Earlier.
PRIME MINISTER: But this advice was offered in April of last year
I don't know if he's in the same position or not, I really don't.
Our own particular examiniation of Medibank had n't come
across-this particular point because I don't think that
it had occured to ary person in the Government and I doubt
if it had -occured to anyone in the Medibank Review Committee
that there was any conflict between the actual agremeents
ardthe law as it had been passed.-
QUESTION:.: But did the Review Coummittee investigate these legal points?
PRIME MINISTER: I would have doubted it I don't think it would have
occured to anyone that there was a conflict, until these
specific questions were raised, as I indicated two days ago.
QUESTION: Is it fair to say that the invalidity would have never come
to light had you not undertaken a review of Medibank?
IRIME MINISTER: I think it probably would have come to light, at some
stage, nobody could say when, but invalidities of this kind,
I would have thought, would have a way of surfacing in one
form or another. I think it's much better-that it's surfaced
now rather than much later?
QUESTION: Do you think it would be a fruitful exercise to ask the
Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General to take a look
at some of the other legislation that's been tabled
in the past three years?
PRIME MINISTER: Well it might well be a fruitful exercise and the specific
agreements with the states that have been encompassed in a number
6.
of matters, are in fact, under examiniation as a result
of this, for that very purpose.
' QUESTION: Since you found this flaw...?
PRIME MINISTER: Yes, since this instance?
QUESTION: That means all other agreements?
PRIME MINISTER: There were a number of formal agreements signed,
and if there are illegalities with them, if they're
not in conformity with the law, I think we need to know
a bout it, so that the matter can be properly rectified.
QUESTION: Mr Nixon raised the question of the South Australian
Railway ( inaudible). Are we to take it that you're
examining all agreements made...
E MINISTRR. Well the major agreements will be under examiniation
yes, we don't want tc be surprised by this sort of situation
in some other arena?
ISTION: It may also mean that you can't get out of some of them?
? RIME MINISTER: It depends on the nature of the agreement.
1) x