Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aged Care, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Hansard source

The purpose of the National Health and Medical Research Council Amendment Bill 2006 is to amend the National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992 to introduce new governance arrangements and to clarify accountability and reporting functions for the NHMRC. These new arrangements will establish the NHMRC as a statutory agency. The CEO will be responsible for the primary functions of the agency and will report to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Previously, the council was responsible for both governance matters and expert scientific advice. The new division of responsibility will allow the council to focus on expert scientific advice while the CEO will have day-to-day responsibility for the operation of the agency.

The proposed changes also streamline the reporting lines of the CEO and the council. The NHMRC previously had three concurrent lines of reporting: the Minister for Health and Ageing, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing and the council itself. This bill provides for the CEO to report directly to the minister while keeping the secretary informed.

Labor will support this bill, but we do have some concerns about it and about the willingness of the Howard government to invest in the incredibly important research efforts that are funded by the NHMRC. Our concerns go initially to the membership of the council. Firstly, we oppose the removal of the requirement that membership of the council must include—and this is what occurred previously—an eminent scientist who has knowledge of public health research and medical research issues. Secondly, we oppose the removal of the requirement that membership should include a person with expertise in the trade union movement, a person with expertise in the needs of users of social welfare services and a person with expertise in environmental issues. Given the advice that this expertise is currently found in members who also have expertise in other areas, we recommend that the requirement for expertise remain and that it be made clear in the legislation that multiple categories of expertise may be found in individuals on the council.

Going to those people who were previously required to be represented on the council, we recognise that an eminent scientist with expertise in or knowledge of public health research and medical research issues would most probably appear on the council in its new structure. But a person with expertise in the trade union movement is not necessarily going to be included in the new structure of the council. That reflects the view of this government that people who represent workers in Australia are not terribly important. That is the way this government thinks, and it is reflected in the bill.

We also express concern that the question of equity may not be addressed if someone with expertise in the needs of users of social welfare services is not included. Our concern about the lack of need for a person with expertise in environmental issues, once again, underscores this government’s respect for the environment. Whilst we support the inclusion of someone on the council who has expertise in ethics, particularly in medical research, no argument during the committee hearing was advanced in support of the necessity for this new category of persons with specific expertise in ethics relating to research involving humans. Clarification is required as to whether the chair of the Australian Health Ethics Committee is a member of the new council as is the case at present.

Our concern also goes to the appointment of the AHEC chair. We oppose the removal of the need for the federal minister to consult with the state and territory health ministers before appointing the chair of AHEC in favour of the requirement of consulting appropriately. During the committee hearing, there was some discussion about what ‘appropriately’ means, and I am afraid Labor senators felt uncomfortable that that was not properly clarified. The bill does not contain a definition of what that might mean nor any certainty that it is being done. In our view, this undermines the principle that the NHMRC should be at arm’s length from government and be a body that has broad acceptability and response to national interests rather than those of any particular health minister at the time. Appointments such as this should be made on merit, and there should be a formal process in place to ensure that this is the case.

Our third point of concern is the issue of disclosure of interests. We note that the minister is not required to be advised if a member of the council has disclosed an interest. We consider it the responsibility of the minister to know if a member or members disclose an interest and regard this as an accountability measure not an administrative task as noted in the schedule prepared by the department for this bill. Fourthly, we note the advice of the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee concerning the altering reporting arrangements and agree with their recommendation that the bill should be amended to enable expert advice to be provided directly to the minister.

Finally, we acknowledge the inappropriateness of defining particular research priorities for the NHMRC but indicate that we would be concerned if the proposed restructure had a result of diminishing the NHMRC’s capacity to strategically respond to the serious problems of Indigenous health, while we recognise that significant progress has been made in recent times through the involvement of members with Indigenous expertise working across the current committee structure.

The amendments enacted in this bill address the governance issues that have been identified in four major reviews over the last few years. It is interesting to note that all of the reports have been around for some time, so clearly the minister has been in no hurry to make these changes, which are claimed in the second reading speech to:

... strengthen the NHMRC’s independence, promote clear lines of responsibility for governance and financial accountability and allow the Council to focus on issues relating to medical and biological research and advice.

Both the second reading speech and the minister’s media release from September last year highlight the need for the NHMRC to build better links with business to improve investment in research and to explore industry joint ventures. While Labor is truly supportive of the need for more industry support for R&D and more collaboration, any attempt to replace federal research funds with private funds should be strongly resisted.

At the same time that this bill was introduced, the government also introduced the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2006 that takes a very heavy handed approach to the ARC abolishing the board and the ARC’s ability to conduct inquiries into national research issues and make decisions about the effective use of research funds. There is concern that this will lead to even more examples than those already known of instances where the Minister for Education, Science and Training has objected to funding for specific projects. Labor is strongly supportive of the ARC’s independence and would be deeply concerned about any similar attempt with respect to the NHMRC.

The NHMRC is Australia’s primary funder of biomedical R&D in Australia. In 2005-06, $447 million for health and medical research was provided through the NHMRC. A recent Access Economics report clearly found that this is one of best investments our nation can make to the wellbeing of our people. The report said:

... returns from health R&D are so extraordinarily high that the payoff from any strategic portfolio of investments is enormous.

                 …         …         …

Health R&D must be seen as an investment in wellness with exceptional returns.

The report also said:

Historically, annual rates of return to Australian health R&D were up to $5 for every $1 spent on R&D.

This can be as high as $8 for cardiovascular R&D and $6 for respiratory R&D. The Access Economics report found that, despite the additional funding flowing as a consequence of the Wills review, continued boosts to investment in health R&D relative to GDP are still warranted given Australia’s poor ranking relative to other OECD countries.

As Australia ages the dependency ratio increases and heath spending naturally will rise. Breakthroughs in R&D are seen as the best way to address the challenge inherent in the cost and impact of chronic disease. Funding in response to the Health and Medical Research Strategic Review, the Wills review, led to the doubling of the NHMRC funding, which was $613.7 million over five years. That five-year period is now complete. I acknowledge that significant funding was allocated in last night’s budget that will pick up the end of that period.

The investment review of health and medical research released by the government in December 2004, the Grant review, recommended that the government continue to invest and build on the Wills funding by increasing federal government investment in health and medical research to $1.8 billion by 2008-09, bringing Australia up to the OECD average level of investment of 0.2 per cent of GDP. I have not had a chance to look at what last night’s funding allocation does in respect of that recommendation. Maybe the minister would like to inform the chamber of whether or not that target has been met. A key finding of the Grant report was that government investment through the Wills funding package had already started to deliver results and that further increases in funding for health and medical research will yield similarly considerable health benefits and economic dividends.

Australian researchers are finding life increasingly difficult. A December 2005 paper in the Medical Journal of Australia highlighted the extent of researcher dissatisfaction with funding and the inadequacy of infrastructure support. It is not surprising that so many of our best scientists are attracted overseas and, unfortunately, stay there. It is truly hoped that last night’s allocation of funds will reduce, if not reverse, the brain drain that is occurring in Australia.

I would like to take the opportunity to recognise that the states have developed their own innovation initiatives and are reaping considerable rewards. Initiatives like my state of Queensland’s Smart State, BioMelbourne, Bio Innovation South Australia and BioFirst New South Wales reflect the recognised importance and economic realities of catching the biotech wave.

While Labor support the proposals in this bill to strengthen the independence of the NHMRC, to clarify reporting lines and to improve appointment processes, we can only wonder why such amendments, seen as good governance and most of them recommended two or more years ago, have taken so long to come forward. It is clear that, despite the wealth of reports around the value of the work of the NHMRC and the ongoing need to support Australia’s health and medical research, this is an issue that up until the passage of this legislation has slipped off the Howard government’s radar screen. Perhaps, given the government’s move to grab control of the Australian Research Council and exercise political control over the peer review processes, we should be grateful for this. But the failure to investment in our research capabilities is yet another example of the Howard government’s squandering of our national resources and failure to build our skills base.

The Australian community supports health and medical research efforts. Research Australia’s annual health and medical research public opinion polls in 2003 and 2004 showed that most Australians wanted to see increased government and industry investment and are prepared to contribute to that investment themselves. In fact, 47 per cent of Australians said that they would rather see surplus government funds invested in health and medical research rather than in tax cuts.

Securing a long-term, enduring, sustainable economic future for Australia does require a long-term view for building on the valuable investment to date. This will be achieved only by a continued focus and leadership by government in partnership with researchers, industry and the community. Government commitment to the recommendations of the Grant report would be a good first step towards showing this leadership. If the additional needed investments in biomedical research come only as a consequence of the sale of Medibank Private, that is simply not good enough, and it demonstrates only too clearly the cynicism of the Howard government, its lack of commitment to biomedical research and its failure to make real investments in Australia’s future.

In May 2004, the Prime Minister announced that the Australian government would establish quality and accessibility frameworks for publicly funded research. The stated aim of this initiative was to develop the basis for improved assessment of the quality and impact of publicly funded research. This report was released by the Minister for Education, Science and Training in March this year, and an advisory group is now working on implementation measures.

While Labor absolutely supports measures to ensure public accountability for how research funds are spent, the crucial question is whether the research quality framework is the most appropriate and cost-effective mechanism to achieve this. If we look at the success of similar schemes overseas, it is not an encouraging story. The UK Research Assessment Exercise was introduced in 1986, but the UK is now set to abandon this process and move to a metrics based system, just like the one Australia is set to jettison through the RQF. The UK RAE is expensive. In 1996 it was estimated to cost between £27 million and £37 million and is widely believed to have downgraded teaching, compromised clinical academic medicine and led to a significant decline in clinical academic staffing levels. It sidetracks researchers and scientists from the core business of research with a dead weight of micromanagement at all levels. A similar system introduced into New Zealand in 2003 has led to reports that many universities have spent more on the exercise than they will gain in funding increases. Australian universities say they need $40 million to begin the implementation of the RQF.

Maybe in his second reading speech the minister will be able to tell us what the state of that is. As I said at the outset, the Labor Party will support the passage of this legislation. We hope that the government recognises the concerns that we have expressed both in this contribution today and also in the additional comments to the report of the inquiry that has been tabled. I take this opportunity to thank those witnesses who appeared at the inquiry and also those people who made submissions to the inquiry process.