|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| 2007-08 ($m) |
2008-09 ($m) |
2009-10 ($m) |
2010-11 ($m) |
2011-12 ($m) |
| 5.6 |
101.5 |
111.1 |
133.2 |
139.3 |
Source: Explanatory Memorandum
The government estimates that around 1.1 million teenagers would be eligible for the vouchers each year.[43] However, if all the eligible teenagers accessed the scheme each year and claimed up to the maximum rebate of $150, then the scheme could cost around $165 million per year, well in excess of the annual forecast costs in the Explanatory Memorandum.[44] This might suggest that the government does not expect that all of the proposed preventative services would be fully utilised, or that all eligible teenagers would access the scheme.
Proposed sections 3 to 7 outline the Act, list definitions used in the Act, describe the meaning of an eligible dental patient with reference to age and income status, describe the meaning of a dental provider and the meaning of a service rendered on behalf of a dental provider.
Proposed section 9 would create a basic entitlement to a dental benefit. Proposed section 9 also provides that the amount payable for the dental service would be in accordance with the proposed Rules, and that this amount would not exceed the amount of the dental service expense (that is, the fee charged by the dentist).
Proposed section 11 would authorise Medicare Australia to pay a dental benefit, which may be credited into a bank account, as specified by the proposed Rules or in a manner as determined by the Chief Executive Officer (the CEO) of Medicare Australia.
Proposed section 12 relates to the assignment of benefits (bulk billing), which would allow for the person and the dental provider (or his or her agent pursuant to proposed subsection 12(4)) to enter into an agreement, in the approved form, for the person to assign his or her right to the dental benefit as payment in full to the dental provider (or his or her agent pursuant to proposed subsection 12(4)) for the dental service.
Proposed section 13 would allow for the assigned benefit to be paid into a bank account as specified by the proposed Rules or in a manner as determined by the CEO of Medicare Australia.
Proposed section 14 would require that a cheque be provided to a person by Medicare Australia, drawn in favour of a dental provider who had rendered dental services (or on whose behalf dental services were rendered) to that person, if requested to do so by that person who has not paid for the dental service.
Proposed section 15 would allow a claim for an unassigned dental benefit to be lodged with Medicare Australia in the approved form and as specified in the proposed Rules. The proposed section would also allow for a claim for assigned dental benefits under proposed section 12 to be made within two years after that service is rendered and would allow for this claim to be sent electronically.
Proposed section 16 would allow for a person to apply to the CEO of Medicare Australia for a longer period in which to lodge a claim for assigned benefits and gives the CEO of Medicare Australia discretionary power to allow this.
Proposed section 17 sets out the financial recording requirements of dental providers (or their employees) that must be satisfied for a dental benefit to be payable. These include recording the account or receipt of fees, voucher and assignment of benefit details, the particulars of which are specified in the proposed Rules.
Proposed section 18 would allow for the proposed Rules to specify the conditions which must be satisfied before a dental benefit is payable, including conditions relating to dental services rendered by or on behalf of, or an arrangement with a Commonwealth, State or Territory Government; local governing body or an authority established by law.
Proposed section 19 provides that a dental benefit is not payable if the person has a complying health insurance policy (as defined in the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 (the Private Health Insurance Act), covering that person’s liability to pay expenses related to a dental service; and that person uses his or her private health insurance to receive a benefit for the dental service.
Proposed section 20 provides that a dental benefit is not payable if the dental service was rendered as part of an episode of hospital treatment, or hospital substitute treatment (as defined under the Private Health Insurance Act).
Proposed section 21 provides that a dental benefit may not be payable if the Rules so specify. Proposed section 21 also provides examples of such circumstances.
Although this part deals specifically with the issuing of vouchers under the proposed Teen Dental Plan, the Explanatory Memorandum points out that the provisions in this part could allow vouchers to be issued for other dental services in the future.[45]
Proposed section 23 provides that a person is eligible for a voucher provided they satisfy the age requirement and the means-test requirement in proposed section 24 below. The section specifies that the person must be aged at least 12 years (or will turn 12 in the particular calendar year), but is under 18 years of age on 1 January of that calendar year.
Proposed subsection 24(1) sets out a ‘basic rule’ to be applied when assessing whether a person satisfies the means test. Under the ‘basic rule’, a person will satisfy the means-test if he or she:
Proposed subsection 24(2) explains when a person would be considered an FTB(A) teenager.
In some cases, there is a ‘section 16 determination’ in force. A ‘section 16 determination’, as defined in proposed subsection 24(3), is a determination under the New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999, and refers to a situation where a person is eligible to receive a FTB(A) payment by instalment, including one who chooses to defer payment of the instalment in order to avoid a potential FTB(A) debt. A ‘section 16 determination’ may also apply to the teenager’s partner.
A teenager would also be considered an FTB(A) teenager if other considerations are satisfied, including:
The Rules may also specify classes of persons who would be regarded as FTB(A) teenagers.
Proposed section 25 would allow for the proposed Rules to specify the time, or method of calculating the time, at which a person satisfies the means test, as well as when a person is an FTB(A) teenager.
Proposed section 26 would allow for the Rules to specify that each eligible person in a specified class of eligible persons qualifies for a voucher in a calendar year relating to a specific dental service.
Proposed section 27 provides for the issuing of vouchers by the CEO of Medicare Australia. Vouchers would normally be issued before 31 October of a calendar year, in order to limit the distribution of vouchers late in the year where there would be limited opportunity to use them. However, this proposed provision would also allow for a voucher to be issued before the end of the calendar year, if a person becomes eligible, but not if the request is made within 15 days of the end of the calendar year. Proposed subsection 27(5) would allow for more than one voucher to be issued in a calendar year (for example, in the case where there are equal shared care arrangements), however only one dental benefit is payable.
The Rules may specify alternative dates and/or time limits to what is provided in the Bill. In addition, the Rules may specify when more than one voucher for a dental service may be issued for a person in any calendar year.
Proposed section 27 applies subject to proposed sections 28 and 29.
Proposed section 28 provides that a voucher is not required to be issued if a person dies before the voucher is issued.
Proposed section 29 would allow the Rules to specify circumstances where a voucher does not have to be issued.
Proposed section 30 provides that the voucher must specify the type of dental service to which it gives access. In the case of the Teen Dental Plan, this is a preventative dental check-up.
Proposed section 31 specifies that a voucher would remain effective from the date it is issued until the end of the calendar year. However, the Rules may specify a different time of effect.
Proposed section 32 would allow for the proposed Rules to provide for other matters, including matters relating to requests for vouchers, the period of effect of vouchers, the persons to whom vouchers are to be issued and lost vouchers.
Proposed subsection 34(1) provides that it is an offence for an entrusted public official (or former entrusted public official), with a duty, function or power under the legislation, to disclose protected information to another person, if such disclosure is not authorised under Part 5 of the proposed Act. Such an offence attracts a maximum penalty of imprisonment for two years or 120 penalty units[46], or both.
Proposed subsection 34(2) identifies who would be an ‘entrusted public official’, listing the CEO, employees, or consultants of Medicare Australia, the Minister for Health and Ageing, as well as the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing and any person employed or engaged by that Department.
‘Protected information’ is defined in proposed subsection 34(3) as information relating to a person other than the person who obtained it in the course of exercising his or her duties, functions or powers under the proposed Act; or such information if obtained by way of an authorised disclosure on public interest grounds under proposed section 36.
Proposed sections 35 – 41 outline the circumstances in which a disclosure of protected information is authorised under the Act. These include when such information:
Proposed section 42 would prohibit an entrusted public official (or former entrusted public official) from being required to disclose protected information—obtained by that official in the course of performing his or her duties or functions, or exercising powers, under the proposed Act—to a court or tribunal (except for the purposes of the proposed Act).
Proposed section 43 provides that it would be an offence for a person to disclose protected information obtained through public interest certification under proposed section 36, when such disclosure is not authorised. Such offence would attract a maximum penalty of imprisonment for two years or 120 penalty units, or both.[51]
Proposed sections 44 – 46 create offences relating to other types of disclosure of protected information. These include soliciting disclosure of prohibited information; soliciting, disclosing or using protected information; and offering to supply (or holding oneself as being able to supply) protected information. All such offences attract a maximum penalty of imprisonment for two years or 120 penalty units,[52] or both.
Part 6 of the Bill establishes general offence provisions relating to assignment agreements and the giving of information. Recovery provisions are also established in the case of false or misleading statements or prior overpayments.
The Part outlines seven offences and these are modelled on existing offences in the Health Insurance Act. The Explanatory Memorandum justifies the alignment with similar provisions in the Health Insurance Act[53] as a way to ensure consistency in patients’ treatment and practitioners’ administrative arrangements relating to billing and claiming.[54]
Proposed section 48 would create an offence when a dental provider, or his or her agent, enters into an agreement, in which particulars of a dental service must be set out in approved form, and the provider has not set out those particulars in the agreement before the other person signs the agreement.
Proposed section 49 would create an offence for a dental provider, or his or her agent, to not give a copy of the (signed) agreement to the other person as soon as practicable after it has been signed.
The penalty for each of those offences is 10 penalty units[55] and both offences are strict liability offences.[56] Noting the comments by the Senate Committee Scrutiny of Bills Committee discussed earlier, further clarification in the explanatory memorandum about the use of strict liability offences is preferable. However, it is likely that the strict liability nature of the offences would enhance the deterrent effect of the provision, encouraging providers to take particular care in completing assignment agreements.[57]
Proposed sections 50 and 51 provide for two strict liability offences relating to false or misleading statements. The penalty for making an oral or written statement (in connection with a claim for a dental benefit) that is false or misleading would be 20 penalty units.[58]
Proposed subsection 50(3) also requires that any prosecution under this section must be instituted within three years of the time when the false or misleading statement was made.
Proposed section 51 would create an offence for an employee, agent or associate of a person to make a false or misleading statement that is substantially used by that person to make another false or misleading statement that is capable of being used in connection with a claim for a dental benefit.
The strict liability nature of the offences in proposed sections 50 and 51 is justified by the need to ensure that providers and their employees guard against the possibility of contravention and ensure the accuracy of their claiming arrangements. Again, these offence provisions and their penalties are consistent with similar offences that currently exist under the Health Insurance Act. However, please refer to the Senate Committee Scrutiny of Bills Committee’s comments regarding strict liability offences as discussed earlier in this Digest.
Proposed sections 52 and 53 would create offences relating to knowingly making false or misleading statements that could be used to claim a dental benefit. This includes statements made by employees, agents or associates. Again, these offence provisions are similar to those in the Health Insurance Act.[59] The maximum penalty for these offences is five years imprisonment, 100 penalty units[60] or both, which is consistent with existing similar provisions. Imprisonment as an alternative punitive measure is justified to serve as a disincentive to engage in the prohibited conduct. The Explanatory Memorandum justifies the departure from preferred penalty benchmarks on the grounds that consistency is necessary because practitioners would be making parallel claims under Medicare and the Dental Benefits Scheme.[61] However, this does not seem to be a realistic justification on the grounds that it would not be common practice for a dentist to claim under both Medicare and the Dental Benefits Scheme for the one patient at any one time. While some dentists already provide services under Medicare, relating to surgical procedures done in hospital, only preventative dental care (check-ups, clean, fissures etc) is covered by the proposed Dental Benefits Scheme.
Proposed section 54 provides for an offence of knowingly giving information that is false or misleading. Again, this offence is similar to section 129 of the Health Insurance Act. As with proposed sections 52 and 53, this offence would be consistent with existing similar arrangements for Medicare benefit arrangements.
Proposed section 55 provides that the abovementioned offences (proposed sections 52, 53, 54) are indictable offences.[62] Proposed subsection 55(2) provides that the offences could be dealt with summarily if both parties consent and the court is satisfied that is proper to do so. If the court does deal with any of these offences summarily, proposed subsection 55(3) provides that the court cannot impose a penalty greater than imprisonment for six months or ten penalty units.[63]
Proposed section 56 provides for the recovery of amounts paid in the case of false or misleading statements. Two conditions must be satisfied:
The excess amount is recoverable as a debt due to the Commonwealth. Proposed subsection 56(3) provides that the debt is recoverable whether or not the amount was paid to the person by or on behalf of whom the statement was made and whether any person has been convicted of an offence in relation to the making of the false or misleading statement.
Proposed section 57 provides for interest to be payable to the Commonwealth on an excess amount recoverable under proposed subsection 56(2). Proposed subsection 57(2) outlines the circumstances in which interest is payable. Proposed subsection 57(5) provides that interest is payable at the rate prescribed under the Health Insurance Regulations 1975.
Proposed section 58 would allow the CEO of Medicare Australia to reduce the dental benefit payment because of a prior overpayment. The amount of the reduction is calculated in accordance with proposed subsections 58(3) to (5).
Proposed section 60 would allow the Minister to make the Rules by legislative instrument.[64] Proposed subsection 60(1) provides that these Rules may provide for matters required or permitted by the proposed Act to be provided, or matters that are necessary or convenient in order to give effect to the proposed Act. Proposed subsection 60(2) may confer power on the Minister or the CEO of Medicare Australia. Under proposed subsection 60(3) the Rules may incorporate matters contained in other legislative instruments. Proposed subsection 60(4) has the effect of allowing matters to be incorporated into the Rules that would not be allowed under the Legislative Instruments Act. Note the Committee’s comments on this issue, as previously discussed in this Digest.
Proposed subsection 61(1) provides for the Rules to establish a Dental Benefits Schedule (DBS) that sets out the items for dental benefits services and the dental benefit payable (or a method for determining such amount payable) for each of the dental services. Proposed subsection 61(2) provides that the Rules may set out the rules for interpretation of the DBS.
Proposed subsection 62(1) provides that the specification of a dental service in an item in the DBS may be unconditional or subject to conditions, limitations or restrictions as specified in the Rules or the DBS.
Under proposed subsection 62(2), these conditions, limitations or restrictions could include imposing a monetary limit on the amount of dental benefit payable, in respect of a specified dental service, or dental services provided to an eligible patient, or dental services provided to an eligible patient during a specified period.
Proposed subsection 64(1) would confirm that, in addition the normal functions of the CEO of Medicare Australia relating to the Medicare Australia Act, the CEO of Medicare Australia has additional the functions as conferred on him or her under the proposed Act.
Proposed subsection 64(2) further provides that anything done by or on behalf of the CEO of Medicare Australia, in performing those additional functions, is taken to have been done for the purposes of performing functions under the Medicare Australia Act.
Proposed section 65 provides that dental benefits payable under the proposed Act would be payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. This makes the payment of dental benefits a standing appropriation, in the same way as the standing appropriation for Medicare benefits under the Health Insurance Act.
Proposed section 66 provides for the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing to delegate, in writing, his or her powers under the proposed Act to an Senior Executive Service (SES) employee,[65] or acting SES employee of the Department, who must comply with any directions of the Secretary.
Proposed section 67 would give the Governor-General discretionary power to make regulations that prescribe matters required or permitted to be prescribed by the proposed Act; or which are necessary or convenient to give effect to the proposed Act.
This Bill proposes to establish a legislative framework for the payment of means-tested dental benefits, in a manner that is, to a limited extent, similar to the payment of medical benefits under Medicare arrangements.
The Bill enacts an election commitment to introduce a Teen Dental Plan from July 2008. It proposes that eligible teenagers in receipt of FTB(A), youth allowance or ABSTUDY, receive a voucher that entitles them to obtain an annual preventative dental check-up from a provider dentist, reimbursable from Medicare. The value of the voucher is $150, which may be lower than the fee charged by a dentist.
Commentators have expressed concerns, including concerns that the value of the voucher would be insufficient to meet the cost of the preventative dental check-up; follow-on treatment services are not provided which would lead to added pressure on public dental waiting lists; or that the age eligibility criteria are too narrow. Some commentators have also expressed support for the ADHCI, which is due to cease after July 2008.
Finally, as previously mentioned, the capacity of the current dental workforce to meet the demand for dental services that is likely to flow as a result of this proposed Bill is limited.
[1]. Australian Health Minister’s Conference, National Advisory Committee on Oral Health Healthy mouths healthy lives: Australia’s National oral health plan 2004-2013, July 2004, p. 6.
[2]. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Chronic diseases and associated risk factors in Australia, 2001, AIHW, 2002, p. 75.
[3]. The Hon. Nicola Roxon, Minister for Health and Ageing, ‘Second Reading Speech: Dental Benefits Bill 2008’, Debates, House of Representatives, 29 May 2008, p. 61.
[4]. ibid.
[5]. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Health Expenditure Australia 2005-06, AIHW, Canberra, 2007, Table A3.
[6]. The Hon. Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister and the Hon. Nicola Roxon, Minister for Health and Ageing, Federal Labor clear dental backlog by establishing a Commonwealth Dental Health Program, joint media release, 18 September 2007.
[7]. The Hon. Nicola Roxon, Minister for Health and Ageing, First steps in implementing new Commonwealth Dental Health Program, media release, 2 March 2008.
[8]. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, op. cit., Tables B1–B25.
[9]. The Hon. Nicola Roxon, Minister for Health and Ageing, Second Reading Speech, op. cit.
[10]. ibid.
[11]. The Hon. Nicola Roxon, Minister for Health and Ageing, First steps in implementing new Commonwealth Dental health program, media release, 2 March 2008. See also the ‘Health Insurance (Dental Services) Amendment and Repeal Determination 2008’, tabled by the Minister for Health and Ageing on 13 May 2008.
[12]. The Hon. Nicola Roxon, Minister for Health and Ageing, ‘Second Reading Speech’, op. cit.
[13]. The Hon. Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister and the Hon. Nicola Roxon, Minister for Health and Ageing, One million Australian kids to benefit from Teen Dental Plan, media release, 2 March 2008.
[14]. Some 1.7 million families received benefits under FTB (A) in 2006–07. Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Annual Report 2006–07, Canberra, p. 167.
[15]. The Hon. Nicola Roxon, Minister for Health and Ageing, ‘Second Reading Speech’, op. cit.
[16]. Calculated by Malcolm Park (Senior Researcher, Statistics Section, Parliamentary Library) using Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) population estimates.
[17]. The Hon. Nicola Roxon, Minister for Health and Ageing, ‘Second Reading Speech’, op. cit.
[18]. For example, the Oral Health Fee for Service Scheme in NSW allows eligible patients to access private dental services using a voucher issued by the NSW government. See NSW Department of Health, ‘Oral Health Fee for Service Scheme’, http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/policies/pd/2006/PD2006_087.html, accessed on 3 June 2008.
[19]. The Hon. Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister and the Hon. Nicola Roxon, Minister for Health and Ageing, Federal Labor to introduce Medicare Teen Dental Plan, media release, 11 November 2007.
[20]. The Hon. Nicola Roxon, Minister for Health and Ageing, op. cit.
[21]. From July 2004 to June 2007: Amanda Biggs, Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Dental Services) Bill 2007, Bills Digest, no. 35, 2007-08, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, p. 3.
[22]. For a full discussion of the changes implemented to the AHDCI see Amanda Biggs, Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Dental Services) Bill 2007, Bills Digest, no. 35, 2007–08, Parliamentary Library, Canberra.
[23]. Medicare Statistics, Group N1 Dentist Services, Group N2 Dental Specialist services, Group N3 Dental prosthetics services, https://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/statistics/dyn_mbs/forms/mbsgtab4.shtml, accessed on 2 June 2008.
[24]. Siobhain Ryan, ‘Late rush for scheme belies reason for axing’, Weekend Australian, 17 May 2008, p. 10.
[25]. Wendell Evans, ‘Budget missed teenage dental needs’, Weekend Australian, 17 May 2008, p. 31.
[26]. Lesley Russell, ‘An analysis of the 2008–09 Health Budget’, Australian Health Policy Institute, [no date], http://www.ahpi.health.usyd.edu.au/news/LRBudget0809.pdf, accessed on 4 June 2008.
[27]. Australian Dental Association, Government fails to deliver on dental health, media release, 13 May 2008.
[28]. ibid.
[29]. The Medicare Safety Net introduced in March 2004, is designed to assist patients with high, cumulative out-of-pocket medical costs by providing reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs incurred for medical treatment provided outside a hospital, once certain thresholds are reached. The Safety Net provides reimbursement for 80 per cent of the total out-of-pocket cost once spending exceeds $529.30 for families in receipt of FTB(A).
[30]. Personal communication, Department of Health and Ageing, 4 June 2008.
[31]. Australian Health Minister’s Conference, National Advisory Committee on Oral Health, op. cit, p. v.
[32]. On average metropolitan areas are well served with dentists with 56.2 dentists per 100 000 population. This declines to 33.6 per 100 000 in inner regional areas, 22.6 per 100 000 in outer regional areas and 22.9 per 100 000 in remote areas: D N Teusner, ‘Geographic distribution of the dentist labour force’, Australian Dental Journal, vol. 50, no. 2, 2005, pp. 119-22.
[33]. The 2008–09 Budget committed $49.5 million for capital infrastructure and 60 dentistry places each year. See Australian Government, ‘Part 2: Expense Measures’, Budget Measures 2008–09: Budget Paper No. 2, p. 134.
[34]. D N Teusner, A J Spencer, Projections of the Australian Dental Labour force, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra, 2003; the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, ‘Dental prosthetist labour force in Australia, 2003’, AIHW Dental Statistics and Research Unit Research Report, no. 25, Adelaide, 2006; the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, ‘Dental hygienist labour force in Australia, 2003’, AIHW Dental Statistics and Research Unit Research Report, no. 22, Adelaide, 2005.
[35]. Australian Dental Association, op. cit.
[36]. Amanda Elliot, ‘Is Medicare Universal?’, Research Note, no. 37, Parliamentary Library, 2002–03, http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/RN/2002-03/03rn37.htm, accessed on 2 June 2008.
[37]. For example, see comments by Nicola Roxon describing Medicare as a ‘universal entitlement’ in the Hon. Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister and the Hon. Nicola Roxon, Minister for Health and Ageing, New directions for Australia’s health: taking responsibility: Labor’s plan for ending the blame game on health and hospital care, August 2007, http://www.alp.org.au/download/070823_dp_new_directions_for_australian_health.pdf, accessed 11 June 2008. Also in a discussion paper on children’s health, Labor claimed that under the former Howard government there has been ‘a major erosion of the universality of Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which are increasingly two-tiered systems, with access to services and essential medicines based on ability to pay’: see ‘Goals for Aussie kids: Labor’s Children’s Health Discussion paper’, Australian Labor Party, February 2006.
[38]. Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Alert Digest, no. 4, 4 June 2008, p. 20.
[39]. ibid.
[40]. ibid., p. 21.
[41]. ibid.
[42]. The Hon. Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister and the Hon. Nicola Roxon, Minister for Health and Ageing, Federal Labor to introduce Medicare Teen Dental Plan, op. cit.
[43]. Explanatory Memorandum, op cit., p. 1.
[44]. Proposed section 65 is a standing appropriation, similar to the standing appropriation in relation to Medicare benefits.
[45]. Explanatory Memorandum, p.9.
[46]. A penalty unit is currently $110: Crimes Act 1914 subsection 4AA(1).
[47]. Subsection 36(2) provides that such an instrument is not a legislative instrument, and therefore is not disallowable. As to disallowance of legislative instruments, see Legislative Instruments Act 2003 sections 42, 44.
[48]. Disclosure would only be permitted to an agency whose functions include enforcement and protection under proposed subsection 38(1), for the purpose of such enforcement or protection. Under proposed subsection 38(2), ‘agency’ would include a State or Territory police force; or any other enforcement authority or officer relating to the law of that State or Territory.
[49]. This decision is based on the reasonable belief that disclosure of such information is necessary to prevent or minimise that threat: proposed subsection 39(1).
[50]. Disclosure of the protected information is based on the reasonable belief of the Secretary of the Department or the CEO of Medicare Australia that the dental provider should be reported to the professional body. However, disclosure of the patient’s protected information may not be made if such information identifies that patient, unless the Secretary of the Department or the CEO of Medicare Australia believes on reasonable grounds that such disclosure is necessary in reporting the dental provider to his or her professional body. As to the meaning of ‘professional body’: see proposed subsection 40(3).
[51]. A penalty unit is currently $110: Crimes Act 1914 section 4AA.
[52]. ibid.
[53]. In particular, see Part VII of the Health Insurance Act 1973.
[54]. Explanatory Memorandum, op. cit., p. 18.
[55]. A penalty unit is currently $110: Crimes Act 1914 section 4AA.
[56]. As to strict liability, see Criminal Code section 6.1.
[57]. Explanatory Memorandum, op. cit., p. 21.
[58]. A penalty unit is currently $110: Crimes Act 1914 section 4AA.
[59]. Health Insurance Act 1973 section 128B.
[60]. A penalty unit is currently $110: Crimes Act 1914 section 4AA.
[61]. Explanatory Memorandum, op. cit., p. 23.
[62]. An indictable offence is an offence against the law of the Commonwealth punishable by imprisonment for a period of more than 12 months, unless the contrary intention appears: the Crimes Act 1914 section 4G.
[63]. A penalty unit is currently $110: Crimes Act 1914 section 4AA.
[64]. As to disallowance of legislative instruments, see Legislative Instruments Act 2003 sections 42, 44.
[65]. As to the meaning of SES employee, see Public Service Act 1999 section 7.
© Commonwealth of Australia
This work is copyright. Except to the extent of uses permitted by the
Copyright Act 1968, no person may reproduce or transmit any part of this
work by any process without the prior written consent of the Parliamentary
Librarian. This requirement does not apply to members of the Parliament
of Australia acting in the course of their official duties.
This work has been prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament
using information available at the time of production. The views expressed
do not reflect an official position of the Parliamentary Library, nor
do they constitute professional legal opinion.
Feedback is welcome and may be provided to: web.library@aph.gov.au. Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library’s Central Entry Point for referral.
