Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise and support this National Health and Medical Research Council Amendment Bill 2006, particularly to support the context in which the bill has been presented and is being advanced today through the Senate. That context, as previous speakers have indicated, is that there is to be a very substantial increase for medical and health research investment in Australia, as announced in the budget which was delivered last night by Treasurer Peter Costello. I note that Senator Allison welcomed this particular announcement last night and I thank her for that. I note that Senator McLucas also welcomed it, but went on to comment that the Australian government had failed to make a real investment in Australian research. I find that comment very difficult to understand in light of the evident commitment made last night by the government to this area.

As senators will undoubtedly be aware, there was a package of $905 million announced last night for Australian health and medical research, one of the most significant boosts in this area that I can recall, perhaps the largest. That is made up of a number of important components, most particularly a boost of $500 million to the National Health and Medical Research Council to continue its important work. That is on top of $200 million in the budget before last, so there has been a boost of $700 million for the NHMRC in the last three years alone, above and beyond its ongoing funding. On top of that we have $170 million for new research fellowships, which is long-term funding for between 50 and 65 Australians to undertake five-year research fellowships in important areas of national priority.

Senators will also recall the announcement just a couple of weeks ago by the Minister for Health and Ageing, Tony Abbott, of a new national adult stem cell research centre in Queensland, which I am sure you will welcome, Madam Acting Deputy President Moore. In this budget there is $22 million provided for research in that area. The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research receives an additional $50 million to contribute to its work, and there are particular grants made to a range of medical research facilities, designed to improve their capacity to deliver quality research projects in their particular states and territories. There is, for example, $10 million for the Macfarlane Burnet Institute for Medical Research and Public Health, $10 million for the Heart Research Institute, $15 million for the Westmead Millennium Institute, $14 million for the Garvan Institute and the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute and $37 million for the Howard Florey Institute. On top of that, I am delighted to see $50 million contributed by the federal government to the John Curtin School of Medical Research here in the national capital, which will greatly assist it to be able to deliver on its major expansion currently under way. I encourage senators to go and see that development if they have a chance during Senate sittings.

In that context, it is very hard to understand why anyone would seriously make the comment, as Senator McLucas did a moment ago, that the Australian government has shown a failure to make real investments in Australian research. The commitment that the government has to Australian research is demonstrated by the amendment bill before the Senate right now. The National Health and Medical Research Council Amendment Bill 2006 provides the underpinning for a sound mechanism to deliver quality research. It provides for clearer, better and more contemporary governance arrangements in the NHMRC and it clarifies the function of accountability and reporting to the Australian people which the council has. In doing that, the bill does not impact on the NHMRC’s fundamental role, its mission, nor does it affect the funding basis for the body. In fact, the bill strengthens the independence of the NHMRC and it should be and is welcomed by the key stakeholders in this sector. The bill makes the NHMRC a statutory authority—it has previously been a body corporate—and subject to the provisions of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. Those arrangements that apply to other government agencies will now apply to the NHMRC.

The decisions the government has made in respect of this bill are a reflection of key reviews of this area, particularly the The virtuous cycle report by the Australian National Audit Office in 2004 and the Uhrig review in 2003. I note that the changes are broadly supported by all those who made submissions to the inquiry, particularly the Australian Society for Medical Research and the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee. In that context, I found some of the additional comments provided by senators from the Labor Party and the Australian Democrats a little bit puzzling. Senator Allison just referred to a concern expressed in the additional comments about the lack of time available for receiving submissions in this inquiry. I am puzzled about this because I understand that there was no particular dissent or dispute about the time frame for this bill to be referred to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. There was no challenge to that time frame. It was provided for that there would be a referral at the end of March with report back to the Senate at the beginning of May. My recollection is that that is quite a long period of time for a legislation committee to consider a bill. I cannot recall, in fact, having a bill inquiry with a longer time frame for reporting, except the RU486 bill inquiry, which notoriously took place over the recent summer.

So there was quite a long time in comparison with usual references to legislation committees, certainly the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. As such, that was a strange comment. But it is perhaps made more understandable by the fact that a number of the additional comments that were made by the Labor and Democrat senators were not in fact made by any of the people who made submissions to the inquiry. For example, the senators concerned say:

We oppose the removal of the requirement that membership of Council must include:

an eminent scientist who has knowledge of public health research and medical research issues

a person with expertise in the trade union movement

a person with expertise in the needs of users of social welfare services

a person with expertise in environmental issues

None of the people making submissions to the inquiry raised those issues. Nobody raised those issues with the inquiry. The closest we got was a comment from the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee that expressed a little bit of concern about reducing the size of the governing council and said:

… the AVCC is concerned that unless attention is placed on the role and function of the Research Committee, the capacity for high quality recommendations to be made concerning funding of research proposals may be put at risk.

But, with respect, that does not really touch on any of issues which have been raised by the additional comments. For that matter, I do not recall much discussion in the course of the hearings about those issues, but perhaps members of the committee will be able to enlighten us about that.