Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (9) to (21) and (23) together:

(9) Clause 20, page 19 (line 16), omit "Finance Minister", substitute "Chief Executive Officer of the NHMRC".

(10) Clause 20, page 19 (line 29), omit "Finance Minister", substitute "Chief Executive Officer of the NHMRC".

(11) Clause 22, page 20 (line 17), omit "a Minister", substitute "the Chief Executive Officer of the NHMRC".

(12) Clause 25, page 21 (line 15), omit "Finance Minister", substitute "Chief Executive Officer of the NHMRC".

(13) Clause 25, page 21 (line 27), omit "Finance Minister", substitute "Chief Executive Officer of the NHMRC".

(14) Clause 27, page 22 (line 20), omit "Health Minister", substitute "Chief Executive Officer of the NHMRC".

(15) Clause 28, page 22 (line 24), omit "any or all of his or her powers under section 26 or 27", substitute "his or her powers under section 26".

(16) Clause 28, page 23 (line 1), omit "Note 1", substitute "Note".

(17) Clause 28, page 23 (lines 3 to 9), omit note 2.

(18) Clause 29, page 23 (line 15), omit "Finance Minister", substitute "Chief Executive Officer of the NHMRC".

(19) Clause 29, page 23 (line 23), omit "Finance Minister", substitute "Chief Executive Officer of the NHMRC".

(20) Clause 30, page 24 (line 1), omit "a Minister", substitute "the Chief Executive Officer of the NHMRC".

(21) Page 24 (after line 2), after Subdivision E, insert:

Subdivision EA—Additional function of the Chief Executive Officer of the NHMRC

30A Additional function of the Chief Executive Officer of the NHMRC

     The functions of the Chief Executive Officer of the NHMRC include the function of giving directions and entering into agreements in accordance with this Division.

(23) Clause 60, page 42 (lines 7 and 8), omit "any or all of his or her powers under section 15, 20, 25 or 29", substitute "his or her powers under section 15".

These amendments go to the heart of the problem with the Medical Research Future Fund Bill 2015. At the heart of the problem with this bill is in fact the government's own inconsistency with its own policy statements. It said very clearly in the health policy budget glossy from the last budget that the funds from the Medical Research Future Fund would primarily go to the National Health and Medical Research Council. This bill does not do that. It fails the government's own budget announcements about what this fund is set to do.

Without any governance structures in this bill, without independent peer review of medical research, this bill runs the risk of trashing the reputation of Australia's medical researchers and medical and health research. It becomes purely at the discretion of the Minister for Finance and then possibly the Minister for Health to disburse these funds, without any legislated mechanism for independent peer review or independent governance of this money.

It says everything about this bill—a bill that is about health and medical research, which should be at the corner of health reform in this country—that the Minister for Health neither bothered to put her name down on the speakers list nor spoke in this debate at all. This bill should be about the core of health and medical research. You will note that I am the shadow minister for health. The shadow minister for finance has deferred to me on this bill because the policy and the core of it are about health and medical research.

It says everything about this government that it has failed to consult with the health and medical research community—it has failed to consult with the experts on health and medical research—about how this fund should be established and, more importantly, how disbursements from this fund should be made.

This bill is fine in that it sets up the investment strategy for this fund. That is a similar way to all of the other nation-building funds. But I draw people's attention to the Health and Hospitals Fund, which is established under the nation-building funds. It has within it a legislated advisory board. It has within it, legislated, the guiding principles by which that advisory board should be making its recommendations.

It is a core failure of this bill that it basically says that the Minister for Finance is unfettered, and then maybe, if he decides to credit the Medical Research Future Fund health special account, the Minister for Health might be able to do something with some of the disbursements from this fund. It says everything that the government has basically left it entirely to the discretion of two ministers as to what the priorities for health and medical research under this fund will be. How can you trust this government when it has trashed health policy in this country by suddenly setting up what in essence will eventually be a billion-dollar-a-year fund where the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Health, if she or he gets the opportunity, whoever it may be then, can decide entirely what the priorities are for health and medical research in this country? This is not the way this should happen.

The NHMRC has been operating since the 1930s. It is the independent statutory authority we trust in this country to determine where health and medical research funding should be directed. It already has a special account, an endowment account, in which disbursements are made. The government has neither put any governance structures in this bill at all nor said that its own test funds from this fund will primarily go to the NHMRC. That it has not done so says everything about this government. This is Senator Brandis's arts council when it comes to health and medical research. If this bill is left to stand as it is, it is absolutely undermining the integrity of health and medical research in this country.

Unlike the government, I have bothered to speak to some of the health and medical research community, and they are very concerned about the governance structures in this bill, so I have moved these amendments to give the government the opportunity to fix this. They said that it was primarily to go through the NHMRC. We want to support medical research. We want to support a bill, but we cannot support this bill in its current form. It must be amended.

Debate adjourned.