Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendments (9) to (21) and (23), moved by the member for Ballarat, be agreed to.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I reject these opposition amendments. I want to talk about how proud I am that this government is committed to ensuring that our nation remains at the very cutting edge of initiatives in medical research. We have done and will continue to do this through ensuring that our medical researchers are on the forefront of developing technologies, treatments and research. In last year's budget, we as a government committed to the creation of a $20 billion Medical Research Future Fund. This is, by far, the biggest endowment fund of its kind in the world and will be an asset to our nation, delivering benefits for all Australians now and well into the future. When I reflect on the initial purpose of the Medical Research Future Fund Bill 2015 and what it proposes, I think of the enormous benefits that can be delivered. This bill will fund vital research, which will enable more researchers and more scientists to discover and innovate new technologies and new medicines.

I know that the Hunter Medical Research Institute, the HMRI, encourages innovation at all levels of health and medical research and that the institute will directly benefit from the establishment of this Medical Research Future Fund, which will provide a secure and reliable revenue stream for further medical research. The fund will enable our nation to support a sustainable health system into the future. The cure to breast cancer, the cure to brain cancer, might only be a number of years in the making. A financial injection such as this, into vital research, may project to such landmark findings that will shape the future and, importantly, save lives. They may only be a few years away.

The Hunter Medical Research Institute recently began a project on virtual biopsies for prostate cancer that could bring new-found accuracy in the diagnosis and monitoring of the disease. This was done through the HMRI opening a magnetic resonance imaging centre, with the most advanced scanning technology in the Southern Hemisphere. This technology is also used for further research into early detection of breast cancer. In August 2014 it expanded into detecting prostate cancer using spectroscopy, a 'virtual biopsy'. This is at the very forefront of prostate cancer research being undertaken on such an advanced MRI scanner. This research is undertaken at the Hunter Medical Research Institute, in the Hunter Valley, and this new technology has been dubbed 'the Ferrari of medicine'.

The Director of HMRI, Professor Michael Nilsson, has also recently teamed up with researchers in Sweden to develop new methods to combat sleep apnoea and help sufferers of severe snoring. I am proud to hear of these outcomes in my patch, my home, the Hunter. The HMRI are also on the forefront with the development of a new generation of targeted melanoma drugs, with HMRI researchers' findings in this sphere likely to lead to future collaborations with the world's top cancer researchers. This news is particularly welcome and significant for the Hunter region, which has above average rates of melanoma. Cancer Institute New South Wales figures show that the Hunter ranks fourth in a list of five red-zone regions, behind northern New South Wales and the Central Coast, for instance. The HMRI cancer program has had research results recently published in the US Journal of Cancer Research for the latest innovations—just an example of how valuable this investment is for our nation and for our communities.

I am proud of what the government is achieving in relation to advancing the scope and potential in both the research and medical fields through the Medical Research Future Fund Bill. To close, I would like to note that this bill is an investment in Australia, an investment into medical research, an investment into quality of life and, more importantly, an investment into generating a better understanding of illnesses and diseases, delivering real outcomes for saving our lives. But the work is not done for Hunter Medical Research. Institute. An investment of $93 million established the first real and meaningful building for the research. Now planning is underway to build a second tower, which will house clinical trials of some of the research, will provide greater opportunities for commercialisation of some of the research outcomes that they have delivered. Importantly, remember, this is a tripartite establishment. Our community holds the chair. It is working with the University of Newcastle and Hunter New England Health to deliver real and meaningful health outcomes for all of our nation, and indeed the world, through the work that is done there.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the amendments (9) to (21) and (23) to the Medical Research Future Fund Bill 2015. Unfortunately, I did not get to speak during the debate as I was cut off, as I have been on numerous debates recently, by a government that is supposedly intent on letting us speak and be heard in this place about such important things as the Medical Research Future Fund.

I reject this notion that the amendments are spurious, because what we have before us is a deeply concerning piece of legislation. On the whole, Labor is happy to support the notion of a Medical Research Future Fund. Indeed, I and the member for Scullin have spent the last 12 months speaking to everybody in the medical research field. We have spoken to them one on one, because we discovered that the government had announced this wonderful medical fund accounting trick—as many people have referred to it, particularly Ross Gittins in The Age. They mentioned the accounting trick in the budget but had not consulted with anybody. The member for Scullin and I have been out, at the request of the shadow minister for health and the member for Ballarat, Katherine King, to actually talk to people in the field. I have talked to everybody in Victoria, where there are a huge array of medical institutions and hospitals, particularly in my electorate, where there are the Monash Medical Centre and Monash University. My own electorate is home to a vast array of NHMRC funding and terrific work is done there. But we discovered a range of concerns and areas of issues that were not addressed in this bill.

But what is more concerning is that we have had 12 months, from the last budget to now, for the government to get out there and talk about it and set up a fund that will work. What we found is that, no, they actually have not established a fund. They have just picked up what was in the Future Fund and called it medical research—badged it. That might work for other things, but this is an area where peer review is paramount and where we need standards set and we need governance. There is no governance in this legislation, so, again, it is very concerning. Without a means for oversight, for an independent advisory panel with a peer review process, and without consulting the NHMRC or even distributing funding at arm's length through the NHMRC, the government, for all intents and purposes, can direct funds from the MRFF to any of its pet projects. It might not even need to be within the medical research area.

So, yes, we are setting up a fund that is meant to go into medical research, but how are those funds being channelled? The bill is fairly silent on that. The community is concerned because, again, the government has not consulted them. If we go back to when the fund was put out in the budget, the media reports said that one of the real surprises of the budget from last year—not this year—was the creation of the Medical Research Future Fund, which was to be partly funded by the introduction of the $7 GP co-payment. Theoretically, that co-payment has gone, but this injected money provides an opportunity to think strategically about the role and direction of Australia's medical research effort. That effort is a really good thing to think about, and where the money is going and where it should be used—that is, in translational medicine, in health services or in mid-career research. There are a raft of areas where the medical research community is crying out for support, assistance and guidance. But, again, this bill does not give any of that guidance, support or information. Health services research was a central part of the 2013 strategic review of health and medical research, the McKeon review, commissioned under the previous Labor government, and has been called for in the 2012-13 Productivity Commission annual audit, which argues:

Policy-making based on good evidence is central to improving community living standards.

It was also mentioned in the recent National Commission of Audit Report, which said that Australia needs to 'embed health and medical research in the health system' in order to 'improve patient outcomes and deliver efficiencies'.

So, again, there is a great need for this, but there needs to be a strategy about how we are embedding this research into the current medical facilities so that we are not just doing more of the same. But the legislation does not tell us if we are doing more of the same or if we are not. A great concern in this space was well said by Sir Gustav Nossal, a man I do not think we can argue with:

I think this $20bn fund is very exciting but … why cut CSIRO? Why cut the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation? Above all, why cut the Australian Research Council? This is going to make an us-and-them situation: the medical researchers will be laughing and the enabling scientists in maths, chemistry, physics and so forth will be suffering. This is not good.

He said that saving the fund would give the government the chance to support the recommendations of the last McKeon committee Strategic Review of Health and Medical Research. And so it would. There is a blueprint under that medical research paper done by Simon McKeon that provides a way forward, having spoken to everybody in this space and had it supported by them, that the outlines of the McKeon review should be supported, invested in and moved upon. But this legislation does not do that. It creates a fund and then says, 'Trust us; we will deliver that fund to the people who need it.' You cannot do that in such a critical area as medical research where you need good-quality peer review.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government does not support the amendments moved by the opposition, because they would not achieve the objective of the bill, which is to establish a fund which will provide complementary funding within the medical research sector to meet priority national needs and to address existing strategic gaps in medical research approaches. The opposition model would continue the old model of primarily funding investigator instigated work through the NHMRC. When Labor was in government they commissioned the McKeon review, which found that Australia needs a more strategic model to get the best health results. The opposition's proposed changes to the bill would firstly place constraints on funding for medical research infrastructure and the commercialisation of medical research innovations. Secondly, the opposition's amendments would remove the ability for the government to enter into agreements with the states and territories, with corporate Commonwealth entities or with corporations. That would be a major constraint on our ability to forge the strongest possible partnerships wherever necessary to get the best health outcomes. Thirdly, the opposition's amendments would burden the CEO of the NHMRC with significant additional administrative responsibilities that are not practical or appropriate in the hands of that office holder. Providing the CEO of the NHMRC with such extensive powers would be inconsistent with the intent of building proper checks and balances into the legislation.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (8) and (22):

(1) Clause 4, page 3 (lines 18 to 22), omit "Initially, the Fund's investments are a portion of the investments of the Health and Hospitals Fund which was established under the Nation-building Funds Act 2008. Additional amounts may also be credited to the Medical Research Future Fund Special Account.", substitute "Amounts are credited to the Medical Research Future Fund Special Account in accordance with determinations by the responsible Ministers.".

(2) Clause 5, page 5 (lines 22 to 24), omit the definition of Health and Hospitals Fund.

(3) Clause 5, page 5 (lines 25 to 28), omit the definition of Health and Hospitals Fund Special Account.

(4) Clause 10, page 12 (lines 6 to 10), omit "Initially, its investments are a portion of the investments of the Health and Hospitals Fund which was established under the Nation-building Funds Act 2008. Additional amounts may also be credited to the Medical Research Future Fund Special Account.", substitute "Amounts are credited to the Medical Research Future Fund Special Account in accordance with determinations by the responsible Ministers.".

(5) Clauses 12 and 13, page 13 (line 9) to page 14 (line 9), omit the clauses.

(6) Clause 15, page 15 (line 23), omit "amounts referred to in paragraph 34(4)(a) are", substitute "amount referred to in paragraph 34(4)(a) is".

(7) Clause 19, page 19 (line 6), omit "Agency; or", substitute "Agency."

(8) Clause 19, page 19 (lines 7 to 9), omit subparagraph (iii).

(22) Clause 34, page 27 (lines 15 to 20), omit paragraph (4)(a), substitute:

These are important amendments in the context of massive cuts to the Health portfolio under this government—cuts of more than $60 billion to hospitals that over time will have a devastating impact, an inevitable impact on emergency department waiting times and elective surgery waiting times. Labor's opposition to the abolition of the Health and Hospitals Fund and the transfer of the remaining $1 billion is consistent with our longstanding position that we will support health and medical research, but not if it happens and is funded in a way that hurts the patients of today.

The Health and Hospitals Fund has delivered significant benefit across Australia based on the clearest possible advice of experts. Unlike the way in which this government has drafted this bill, Labor established the Health and Hospitals Fund with proper governance and proper oversight. When Labor introduced the Nation-Building Funds Act in 2008—the act that established the Health and Hospitals Fund, among others—we also established an advisory board with oversight of the Health and Hospitals Fund. The Nation-Building Funds Act explicitly stated:

The function of the Health and Hospitals Fund Advisory Board is to advise the Health Minister about the making of payments in relation to the creation or development of health infrastructure.

I particularly want to make some mention of some of the projects that have been delivered under this fund and the positive impact that the fund has had on the health and wellbeing of Australians. I want to acknowledge the 24 regional cancer centres delivered across three rounds of the fund, including in areas where, up to the time of their opening, patients had to travel many hundreds and sometimes thousands of kilometres to receive the best quality treatment for cancer. I refer in this regard to the services constructed in Townsville, Traralgon, Ballarat, Bunbury, and Whyalla in my state of South Australia, among others.

The Health and Hospitals Fund also contributed to countless other projects of significant value to communities across the country, including the Garvan St Vincent's Campus Cancer Centre in Sydney, the Nepean Clinical School, the Melbourne Neuroscience Project, the new rehabilitation unit at Fiona Stanley Hospital in Perth, the Midland Health Campus in Perth, the Acute Medical and Surgical Services Unit in Launceston, and the research and training facility at the Menzies School of Health Research in Darwin, among many others. It is obvious that the Health and Hospitals Fund has had a significant benefit. This is something that should not be lost as a result of this government's broken promises and through its ongoing cuts to health funding.

The Prime Minister did of course promise before the last election that there would be no cuts to health. In opposing the abolition of the Health and Hospitals Fund, Labor is at least holding the government to account on the program in this area.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government do not support the amendments moved by the opposition—we definitely do not. The removal of provisions to transfer $1 billion from the Health and Hospitals Fund to the Medical Research Future Fund would have an adverse effect on the earnings of the fund. I am bewildered; I am surprised—I do not understand. I am getting a message all through the debate on this legislation that, for some reason, Labor are not broadly in support of medical research, because if they were they would not be moving amendments like this.

The Health and Hospitals Fund is largely uncommitted. It is not currently being used for a health purpose. The Health and Hospitals Fund was always intended to be a time limited fund which would eventually be exhausted; unlike the MRFF, which will exist in perpetuity. The MRFF allows the balance of these funds to be used for health purposes. It is not taking away the characterisation of these funds as being for health; it is far wider and more strategic than what the HHF allowed for.

It is interesting to hear from the member for Port Adelaide. I know he is representing the shadow minister and I appreciate that he is delivering the shadow minister's message, but let's not forget the origin of the Health and Hospitals Fund. This is not money that Labor had at its disposal, or that it created out of the goodness of its heart. This money derived from Peter Costello's Future Fund. It was an investment in perpetuity for the future. Labor took the earnings from the Future Fund and created a new fund called the Health and Hospitals Fund at a time when previous Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was trying a dramatic take-over of the hospital system.

There is no doubt that good projects have been funded, no doubt at all; and we do not back away from that. But the question for governments and the question for this parliament is: what is the most effective use of this money going into the future? The value that we place on medical research is not the value that Labor places on medical research. Remember they tried to take out $400 million from the budget for medical research in 2011, and then they were embarrassed into a backflip. There was a sneaky accounting trick—I think, in the last of their budgets—around another $110 million, proving categorically that they are no friend of medical research and that their measures in opposing our sensible legislation are not appreciated and not supported.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Question put.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to this bill and to the Medical Research Future Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2015, which is next on the order of business.

I seek leave to move government amendments as circulated on sheet HK145 together. They amend the Medical Research Future Fund Bill 2015.

Leave granted.

I move government amendments (1) to (22), as circulated on sheet HK145, together:

(1) Clause 4, page 4 (after line 8), after:

  (c) making grants of financial assistance directly to corporate Commonwealth entities.

  insert:

The Australian Medical Research Advisory Board is established to determine the Australian Medical Research and Innovation Strategy and the Australian Medical Research and Innovation Priorities. The Health Minister takes the Priorities into account in making decisions about the financial assistance that is provided from the Medical Research Future Fund Special Account.

(2) Clause 5, page 4 (after line 18), after the definition of acquire, insert:

  Advisory Board means the Australian Medical Research Advisory Board established by section 32B.

(3) Clause 5, page 4 (after line 22), after the definition of asset, insert:

Australian Medical Research and Innovation Priorities means the priorities determined under section 32E.

  Australian Medical Research and Innovation Strategy means the strategy determined under section 32D.

(4) Clause 10, page 12 (after line 20), after:

  (c) making grants of financial assistance directly to corporate Commonwealth entities.

  insert:

Debits are made from the Medical Research Future Fund Special Account by the Finance Minister after being required to do so by the Health Minister. The Health Minister takes the Australian Medical Research and Innovation Priorities (which are determined by the Australian Medical Research Advisory Board under Part 2A) into account in making decisions about the financial assistance that is provided from the Medical Research Future Fund Special Account.

(5) Heading to Subdivision A, page 16 (lines 3 and 4), omit the heading, substitute:

Subdivision A—Rules relating to debits from the Medical Research Future Fund Special Account

15A Health Minister may require the Finance Minister to debit amounts

(1) The Health Minister may, in writing,require the Finance Minister to debit a specified amount from the Medical Research Future Fund Special Account under Subdivision C, D or E.

Note 1: The Health Minister must report on the financial assistance provided from the Medical Research Future Fund Special Account (see section 57A).

Note 2: The Health Minister may delegate this power under section 61A.

(2) The Health Minister must take into account the Australian Medical Research and Innovation Priorities that are in force in determining whether to require the Finance Minister to debit an amount.

(3) A requirement under subsection (1) is not a legislative instrument.

(6) Clause 20, page 19 (lines 16 and 17), omit "The Finance Minister may, by writing, direct that, on a specified day, a", substitute "If, under section 15A, the Health Minister requires the Finance Minister to debit a specified amount from the Medical Research Future Fund Special Account under this Subdivision, the Finance Minister must, by writing, direct that, on a specified day, the".

(7) Clause 20, page 19 (line 18), omit "Medical Research Future Fund".

(8) Clause 24, page 21 (line 2), omit "(1) The purpose of the MRFF Health Special Account is (subject to subsection (2))", substitute "The purpose of the MRFF Health Special Account is".

(9) Clause 24, page 21 (lines 12 and 13), omit subclause (2).

(10) Clause 25, page 21 (lines 15 and 16), omit "The Finance Minister may, by writing, direct that, on a specified day, a", substitute "If, under section 15A, the Health Minister requires the Finance Minister to debit a specified amount from the Medical Research Future Fund Special Account under this Subdivision, the Finance Minister must, by writing, direct that, on a specified day, the".

(11) Clause 25, page 21 (line 17), omit "Medical Research Future Fund".

(12) Clause 25, page 21 (lines 20 to 23), omit subclause (2).

(13) Clause 26, page 22 (lines 1 to 13), omit the clause, substitute:

26 Debits from the MRFF Health Special Account

(1) As soon as practicable after an amount has been credited to the MRFF Health Special Account under paragraph 25(1)(b), the Health Minister must ensure that the MRFF Health Special Account is debited for the purposes of making one or more grants to bodies of a kind referred to in section 24.

Note 1: The Health Minister must publish on the internet information about the grant to which the debit relates—see section 58.

Note 2: The Health Minister may delegate the power under this section to the CEO, an SES employee or acting SES employee of the NHMRC (see section 61A).

(2) However, if one or more of the grants cannot be made, an amount equal to the credited amounts of those grants is to be:

  (a) debited from the MRFF Health Special Account; and

  (b) credited to the Medical Research Future Fund Special Account.

(14) Clause 27, page 22 (line 16), omit "subsection 25(2)", substitute "subsection 26(1)".

(15) Clause 27, page 22 (after line 21), at the end of subclause (3), add:

Note: The Health Minister may delegate the power under this section to the CEO, an SES employee or acting SES employee of the NHMRC (see section 61A).

(16) Clause 28, page 22 (line 22) to page 23 (line 11), omit the clause.

(17) Clause 29, page 23 (lines 15 and 16), omit "The Finance Minister may, by writing, direct that, on a specified day, a", substitute "If, under section 15A, the Health Minister requires the Finance Minister to debit a specified amount from the Medical Research Future Fund Special Account under this Subdivision, the Finance Minister must, by writing, direct that, on a specified day, the".

(18) Clause 29, page 23 (lines 16 and 17), omit "Medical Research Future Fund".

(19) Page 25 (after line 13), after Part 2, insert:

Part 2A—Australian Medical Research Advisory Board

Division 1—Simplified outline of this Part

32A Simplified outline of this Part

The Australian Medical Research Advisory Board is established to determine the Australian Medical Research and Innovation Strategy and the Australian Medical Research and Innovation Priorities. The Health Minister takes the Priorities into account in making decisions in relation to the financial assistance provided from the Medical Research Future Fund Special Account.

The Strategy is determined every 5 years and the Priorities are determined every 2 years.

The Advisory Board consists of the CEO of the NHMRC and other persons appointed by the Health Minister with suitable experience and knowledge.

Division 2—Establishment of Australian Medical Research Advisory Board and functions

32B Australian Medical Research Advisory Board

(1) The Australian Medical Research Advisory Board is established.

(2) The Health Minister may give the Advisory Board written directions as to:

  (a) the way in which the Advisory Board is to carry out its functions; and

  (b) procedures to be followed in relation to meetings.

(3) A direction under subsection (2) is not a legislative instrument.

32C Functions of the Advisory Board

     The functions of the Advisory Board are:

  (a) to determine the Australian Medical Research and Innovation Strategy and the Australian Medical Research and Innovation Priorities in accordance with Division 3; and

  (b) to advise the Health Minister about other matters that the Health Minister refers to the Advisory Board.

Division 3—The Australian Medical Research and Innovation Strategy and Australian Medical Research and Innovation Priorities

32D The Australian Medical Research and Innovation Strategy

(1) The Advisory Board must determine a strategy for ensuring that a coherent and consistent approach is adopted in providing financial assistance under this Act for medical research and medical innovation.

(2) The first Australian Medical Research and Innovation Strategy must be determined as soon as practicable after this section commences. A subsequent Strategy must be determined and in force as soon as the current Strategy ceases to be in force.

(3) In determining the Australian Medical Research and Innovation Strategy, the Advisory Board must take into account:

  (a) the national strategy for medical research and public health research prepared for the purposes of paragraph 16(2)(c) of the National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992; and

  (b) any other relevant matter.

(4) An Australian Medical Research and Innovation Strategy is in force for 5 years.

(5) An Australian Medical Research and Innovation Strategy must not require financial assistance to be provided to a particular person, or for a particular project.

(6) An Australian Medical Research and Innovation Strategy is a legislative instrument, but section 42 (disallowance) of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 does not apply to the Strategy.

(7) In addition to the requirement under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 for an Australian Medical Research and Innovation Strategy to be registered, the Advisory Board must ensure that the Strategy that is in force is published on the internet.

(8) Subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 does not apply in relation to the power under this section to determine an Australian Medical Research and Innovation Strategy.

32E The Australian Medical Research and Innovation Priorities

(1) The Advisory Board must determine the priorities for providing financial assistance under this Act for medical research and medical innovation.

(2) The Australian Medical Research and Innovation Priorities must be consistent with the Australian Medical Research and Innovation Strategy that is in force.

(3) In determining the Australian Medical Research and Innovation Priorities, the Advisory Board must take into account the following:

  (a) the burden of disease on the Australian community;

  (b) how to deliver practical benefits from medical research and medical innovation to as many Australians as possible;

  (c) how to ensure that financial assistance provided under this Act provides the greatest value for all Australians;

  (d) how to ensure that financial assistance provided under this Act complements and enhances other financial assistance provided formedical research and medical innovation;

  (e) any other relevant matter.

(4) Australian Medical Research and Innovation Priorities must be determined as soon as practicable after the first Australian Medical Research and Innovation Strategy is registered under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003. Subsequent Australian Medical Research and Innovation Priorities must be determined and in force as soon as the current Priorities cease to be in force.

(5) Australian Medical Research and Innovation Priorities are in force for 2 years.

(6) Australian Medical Research and Innovation Priorities are a legislative instrument, but section 42 (disallowance) of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 does not apply to the priorities.

(7) In addition to the requirement under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 for Australian Medical Research and Innovation Priorities to be registered, the Advisory Board must ensure that the Priorities that are in force are published on the internet.

(8) Subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 does not apply in relation to the power under this section to determine Australian Medical Research and Innovation Priorities.

Division 4—Advisory Board members

32F Membership of the Advisory Board

     The Advisory Board consists of:

  (a) the CEO (within the meaning of section 4 of the National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992) of the NHMRC; and

  (b) up to7 other members.

32G Appointment of members

(1) Advisory Board members referred to in paragraph 32F(b) are to be appointed, on a part-time basis, by the Health Minister by written instrument.

(2) A person is not eligible for appointment to the Advisory Board under paragraph 32F(b) unless the Health Minister is satisfied that, if the person were appointed, the Board would collectively possess an appropriate balance of experience or knowledge in the following fields:

  (a) medical research;

  (b) policy relating to health systems;

  (c) management of health services;

  (d) medical innovation;

  (e) financing and investment;

  (f) commercialisation.

(3) The Minister must appoint one of the members of the Advisory Board appointed under subsection (1) to be the Chair.

(4) A member of the Advisory Board appointed under subsection (1) holds office for the period specified in the instrument of appointment. The period must not exceed 5 years.

Note: A member of the Advisory Board may be reappointed—see section 33AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

32H Remuneration and allowances

(1) A member of the Advisory Board is to be paid the remuneration that is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. If no determination of that remuneration by the Tribunal is in operation, the member is to be paid the remuneration that is determined by the Health Minister.

(2) A member of the Advisory Board is to be paid the allowances that are prescribed under subsection (4).

(3) This section has effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973.

(4) The Health Minister may, by legislative instrument, prescribe:

  (a) remuneration for the purposes of subsection (1); and

  (b) allowances for the purposes of subsection (2).

32J Leave of absence

     The Health Minister may grant leave of absence to a member of the Advisory Board on the terms and conditions that the Health Minister determines.

32K Disclosure of interests

(1) This section applies to a member of the Advisory Board who has a material personal interest in a matter being considered, or about to be considered, by the Advisory Board.

(2) The member must, as soon as possible after the relevant facts have come to the member's knowledge:

  (a) disclose the nature of the interest at a meeting of the Advisory Board; and

  (b) disclose the nature of the interest to the Health Minister.

(3) A disclosure under paragraph (2)(a) must be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

(4) The Health Minister must terminate the appointment of a member of the Advisory Board appointed under subsection 32G(1)if the member fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with subsection (2) of this section.

(5) Subsection (4) does not limit section 32N.

32L Other terms and conditions

     A member of the Advisory Board holds office on the terms and conditions (if any) in relation to matters not covered by this Act that are determined, in writing, by the Health Minister.

32M Resignation

(1) A member of the Advisory Board appointed under subsection 32G(1)may resign his or her appointment by giving the Health Minister a written resignation.

(2) The resignation takes effect on the day it is received by the Health Minister or, if a later day is specified in the resignation, on that later day.

32N Termination

     The Health Minister may at any time terminate the appointment of person under subsection 32G(1)to the Advisory Board.

(20) Clause 54, page 40 (after line 9), at the end of the clause, add:

Every 2 years, the Health Minister must provide a report to the Parliament on the financial assistance provided from the Medical Research Future Fund Special Account.

(21) Page 41 (after line 14), after clause 57, insert:

57A Health Minister to report to Parliament on financial assistance

(1) The Health Minister must, as soon as practicable after the most recent Australian Medical Research and Innovation Priorities cease to be in force, prepare a report on the financial assistance provided for medical research and medical innovation from the Medical Research Future Fund Special Account during the period the Priorities were in force.

(2) The report must include:

  (a) a description of how the financial assistance provided was consistent with the Australian Medical Research and Innovation Priorities; and

  (b) information about any other financial assistance provided by the Commonwealth for medical research and medical innovation.

(3) The Health Minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is prepared.

(22) Page 43 (after line 6), after clause 61, insert:

61A Delegation by the Health Minister

(1) The Health Minister may, by writing, delegate any or all of his or her powers under section 15A, 26 or 27 to:

  (a) the Secretary of the Health Department; or

  (b) an SES employee, or acting SES employee, of the Health Department; or

  (c) the CEO (within the meaning of section 4 of the National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992) of the NHMRC; or

  (d) an SES employee, or acting SES employee, of the NHMRC.

Note 1: The expressions SES employee and acting SES employee are defined in section 2B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

Note 2: A power delegated under paragraph (1)(c) is a function conferred on the CEO of the NHMRC under paragraph 7(1)(e) of the National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992.

Note 3: This section allows the Health Minister to delegate powers to the CEO, or an SES employee or acting SES employee, of the NHMRC. This allows the Minister to benefit from the NHMRC's expertise in funding medical research and allows the NHMRC to manage distributions from the MRFF Health Special Account (for example, for payments in relation to competitive grants or other programs administered by the NHMRC).

(2) In exercising powers under a delegation under subsection (1), the delegate must comply with any directions of the Health Minister.

These amendments clarify and enhance the decision-making and accountability mechanisms to be used in the disbursement of funds from the MRFF. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later time.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The minister will obviously have leave to continue her remarks when the debate is resumed at a later hour.