Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Primary Healthcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (4), (5) and (6) as circulated in my name:

(4)    Part 3, page 7 (after line 27), after clause 11, insert:

        11A Publication

                 The CEO must cause a copy of any advice or recommendations made in undertaking the CEO’s functions under subsection 11(1) to be published on the ANPHA’s website within 14 days of providing the advice or making the recommendations.

(5)    Clause 29, page 14 (line 11), omit “and”.

(6)    Clause 29, page 14 (line 13), at the end of paragraph 29(c), add:

                      ;

             (d)    at least one, but no more than 2, members who are industry representatives; and

             (e)    at least 1, but no more than 2, other members representing consumers or consumer health organisations.

These amendments relate to the publishing advice for the CEO. The National Preventative Health Task Force recommended a high level independent statutory body. Instead, the government is making this agency an arm of government. We believe that the recommendations and advice should be as transparent as possible. They should be transparent and open to public scrutiny.

The changes that the coalition is proposing will increase the transparency of this body, and I emphasise that this measure is taken from an amendment which was moved by Senator Xenophon during the debate on this bill in the Senate last year. These changes will mean that the CEO must publish a copy of any advice or recommendations on the agency’s website. This is about the future health of our nation and as such it should be subject to public scrutiny and debate.

Amendments (5) and (6) relate to the need for broad representation on the advisory council. The government has acknowledged in the explanatory memorandum that the advisory council could include industry representatives. The minister, I believe, said so in her second reading speech. So we need to look at the membership structure of the advisory council. We believe that it is important to get outcomes in preventative health whereby you have a focus; where you do have representation from industry representatives and also consumer health organisations. We believe it is important that by working with industry and preventative health experts we get these outcomes. I encourage members to support these amendments.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very briefly, the government opposes amendment (4). We believe it is entirely impractical and inappropriate. It would be the first time that any agency would be required to publish all its advice to government. The agency would report to Senate estimates and would prepare an annual report. If amendments (5) and (6) are opposed—as I understand has been indicated by the Greens—it would be our preference for these amendments not to be passed. We did offer to negotiate with the opposition. That was rejected and accordingly we will be voting with the Greens in opposing all three amendments.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Primary Healthcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government was never prepared to negotiate on the amendments (4), (5) and (6). It never supported these amendments. Amendments (4), (5) and (6) were not ones which the government was prepared to support. We believe that these are important. This is the new paradigm where the House of Representatives is a house of review. I know it is something new. We encourage members to support these amendments.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens oppose these amendments. The alcohol and junk food industries alone spend enormous sums to undermine the potential benefits that would be achieved by this agency. When we consider the efforts of the alcohol industry in particular to oppose measures designed to make its products less attractive to young people, we note with some great concern that the moves to enshrine the place of the alcohol and junk food industries on this agency would potentially undermine its work. For those reasons we oppose these amendments.

Question put:

That the amendments (Dr Southcott’s) be agreed to.