SUBJECTS: Private health insurance;Productivity Commission Mental Health inquiryALP 2019 election review.

PATRICIA KARVELAS, HOST: Welcome back to Drive.

CHRIS BOWEN, SHADOW MINISTER FOR HEALTH: Good to be back with you, Patricia.

KARVELAS: Labor supports the Productivity Commission review of the private health insurance system. Some experts say the question is should it be saved, not can it be saved. Do you think it's worth saving?

BOWEN: Look, I think the private health insurance sector and of course private health more broadly will continue to have a role in Australia's health care provision. So no, I don't agree with a proposition that somehow we should be engineering the end of private health insurance. What I do think though is that the model is fundamentally broken. Australians are voting with their feet and we do need a very thorough review to ensure that private health insurance is viable going forward, that people are getting value for money and that the tax payer's money is being well spent.

KARVELAS: CHOICE and the AMA say the reforms the Government introduced in April didn't reduce premiums or improve transparency but they argue that's the industry's fault. Do you accept the Government is trying to fix this?

BOWEN: Look I think the record as far as I know are unobjectionable but what I don't agree with is Greg Hunt's argument that that's the be all and end all. He calls it the most fundamental reform of private health insurance in history, which certainly isn't true. And clearly it's not having the sort of positive impact which he claims. Now, people can argue whose fault that is but the fact of the matter is, the Australian consumer, public has not received any relief because of those reforms.

KARVELAS: Should the Government rule out giving the industry additional funding?

BOWEN: That's certainly I dont think, a sustainable solution and I know some of the industry have argued for an increase in rebate or they've argued for an Americanisation of the system with employers paying for people's private health insurance. I don't think either those are sustainable solutions. The tax payer already is paying a lot for the rebate. That's appropriate, but I don't think it's appropriate to argue that it should go further.

KARVELAS: Premiums are rising well above wages and inflation. The industry blames the cost of specialist equipment. Is the industry price gouging, or are the premium increases legitimate?

BOWEN: Well, I have said to the medical device industry a couple of things and they are the ones that you're referring to there, the prosthesis industry and the medical devices industry more broadly, that they have an ongoing contribution to make. It should be noted, they've already made a contribution. They've got a deal with the government, which has returned a considerable reduction in their process. Now what I have said to them publicly, and privately, is they will need to continue to benchmark their process against international best practice and if we are paying more in Australia than other countries, and they need to justify that or fix it. But it should be done with them, not to them. There needs to be a collaborative process. But Patricia, most analysis I have read says that those costs are between 10 and 14% of private health insurance. So even if those costs reduce dramatically tomorrow, it's not going to solve all the problems.

KARVELAS: Labor has offered bipartisanship on improving the mental health system after last week's Productivity Commission draft report. What do you think the starting point for reform should be?

BOWEN: Well, a few things Patricia, firstly, we've offered bipartisan support since before then In fact, I wrote to Minister Hunt several weeks ago suggesting an approach similar to that the Hawke government adopted with HIV AIDS, which was a bipartisan working party. Minister Hunt has written back to me saying, he agrees we should work together and wants to do it through the Parliamentary Friends of Suicide Prevention, which is fine with me. So we will certainly engage with that process.

I thought the Productivity Commission's draft report, and it was only a draft report was nevertheless a substantive contribution, good contribution. I mean, I think some people were surprised by what was in it in terms of the scale of the problem. I didn't find it surprising. We've known for a long time that 20 per cent of Australians will have had a common mental illness in any one given year, but only 35 per cent of those people have had one of those common mental illnesses have received professional help. And we know that this is a very serious issue with a disability caused by the moderate depression. Similar to the impact of MS or severe asthma. This has been an ongoing problem for a long time. What I do know is that tinkering won't solve it and the Productivity Commission recognise that. They were recommending substantial changes. I welcome the fact that they were looking to some degree, at least at some of the social determinants. And I think we need to look further at that. They did note, for example, the need for a big investment in housing in many areas, because housing, poor housing is the root of many problems. So I thought that was a good constructive suggestion. It's a long way to go.

We've said that we will give the Government bipartisan support fully on good measures. I have also said and it is my job to say, we will do, but if those measures fall short and then we will hold them accountable and, and provide alternatives. But we're not there yet. At the moment, we welcome the fact that the Government instituted the Productivity Commission review we welcome the appointment of the National Suicide Prevention coordinator. These are all good steps but they're only the very beginning.

KARVELAS: On Thursday a post mortem of Labor's federal election campaign will be released. Already we've heard a number of senior figures give their take on what went wrong. I'd like to get your take what do you think was key to that election loss?

BOWEN: Well, look, a couple of points. Patricia, firstly, we only have two days to go to the review. So not that long to wait. So we should wait. Secondly, you know, I've seen all the different speculation. I think it was a complicated thing. I don't think it's one single explanation. I don't think it's right or appropriate to. Some people say it was all Bill Shorten. And I don't accept that for a second. He has taken responsibility. But I don't think that's right either, I think that would be learning the wrong lessons. I'm giving a speech on Thursday night will be a forward looking speech. The first Keating lecture, the inaugural lecture, I will be looking forward to the future. But of course, I'll have some reflections about the election as well. But we'll have the benefit of the review out by then Patricia so it's not long to go.

KARVELAS: Okay. So how much was it was down to you then in terms of the economic agenda, which many people say was a pretty, pretty big negative for Labor?

BOWEN: Well let's wait to say what the review says about that. I take my fair share of responsibility as a senior member of the team, as I think all senior members of the team would do. There's no doubt about that. Let's look at what the review says, we will deal with that then, and I will have a bit more to say on Thursday.

KARVELAS: Okay. Should you have toned down your policies on franking credits and negative gearing?

BOWEN: Well, let's see what the review says about those policies first.

KARVELAS: So what's your instinct? You were in charge of that area, you must have a view.

BOWEN: Well, and again, I'm making a substantial contribution on Thursday evening in my address, but the fact of the matter is. You know, we did argue for those policies very strongly over, in the case of negative gearing, you know, almost five years, Franking credits a long time as well. They were two of our policy offerings, as well as important investments in health and education, infrastructure, and superannuation, all of which were paid for by those policies and others. So we need to consider all those elements.

KARVELAS: Finally, the RBA has left interest rates on hold, retail spending has hit its lowest level in three decades. Does the Government need to bring forward stage two of the tax cuts in your view?

BOWEN: Well, I agree with what Jim Chalmers and Anthony Albanese have had to say here. Of course, the Liberal Party - ask them about that the last election, fair enough, because the Liberal Party said they had a plan for growth. They didn't. I mean, we've got the worst retail sales figures since the recession I mean, worse than the global financial crisis. We've got anaemic growth, growth been downgraded by the IMF. Interest rate cut after interest rate cut and there's only so much pressure we can put on the Reserve Bank as a country, there's only so much they can do. The Government does have to step forward. Anthony and Jim and Catherine have called for the fast tracking of infrastructure, they've also called on the Government to adopt an investment guarantee like we went to the election proposing, which is tax relief on the condition of investment by business. That was a pro growth policy. We'd like to see the government adopt that, or something like it. I agree with the points that Anthony and Jim in particular have been making.

KARVELAS: Thank you so much for your time.

BOWEN: Nice to talk to you Patricia.