Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move all of the government amendments together.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (12:23): Just for clarity: leave is being sought to move all government amendments, not just the government amendments listed in this section on the running sheet. I do not want anyone to be confused about that. There being no objection, leave is granted.

I move all of the government amendments on running sheet HK148 as a block:

(1) Clause 5, page 7 (lines 4 to 7), omit the definition of medical innovation, substitute:

  medical innovation includes:

  (a) the application and commercialisation of medical research for the purpose of improving the health and wellbeing of Australians; and

  (b) the translation of medical research into new or better ways of improving the health and wellbeing of Australians.

(2) Clause 15A, page 17 (lines 10 to 12), omit note 1, substitute:

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

(3) Clause 15A, page 17 (line 13), omit note 2.

(4) Clause 15A, page 17 (lines 14 to 16), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) In determining whether to require the Finance Minister to debit an amount, the Health Minister:

  (a) must take into account the Australian Medical Research and Innovation Priorities that are in force; and

  (b) has the power to seek expert advice on the merits of making the grant to which the debit relates; and

  (c) may consider any other relevant matter.

(5) Clause 15A, page 17 (after line 17), at the end of the clause, add:

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

(6) Clause 21, page 21 (after line 17), at the end of subclause (1), add:

Note: The Health Minister must publish on the internet information about the grant—see section 58.

(7) Clause 24, page 22 (line 21), omit "Note", substitute "Note 1".

(8) Clause 24, page 22 (after line 22), at the end of the clause, add:

Note 2: A body that receives a grant may be acting in partnership with an overseas body or other body in relation to the medical research or medical innovation.

(9) Clause 29, page 24 (after line 10), at the end of subclause (1), add:

Note: The Health Minister must publish on the internet information about the grant—see section 58.

(10) Clause 32D, page 29 (after line 19), at the end of subclause (3), add:

Note: The Advisory Board is also required to provide a consultation process before determining the Strategy—see section 32EA.

(11) Clause 32E, page 30 (after line 22), at the end of subclause (3), add:

Note: The Advisory Board is also required to provide a consultation process before determining the Priorities—see section 32EA.

(12) Page 31 (after line 7), at the end of Division 3, add:

32EA Consultation process before determining an Australian Medical Research and Innovation Strategy or Australian Medical Research and Innovation Priorities

(1) Before determining an Australian Medical Research and Innovation Strategy, or Australian Medical Research and Innovation Priorities, the Advisory Board must provide a process for consulting:

  (a) organisations with expertise in medical research or medical innovation; and

  (b) organisations that represent consumers who benefit from medical research or medical innovation; and

  (c) any other person or organisation.

(2) This section does not limit section 17 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.

(13) Clause 32G, page 32 (line 19), after "management", insert "or delivery".

(14) Clause 32G, page 32 (line 22), omit "commercialisation.", substitute "commercialisation;".

(15) Clause 32G, page 32 (after line 22), at the end of subclause (2), add:

  (g) philanthropy;

  (h) consumer issues relating to health.

(16) Clause 54, page 49 (line 11), omit "on the", substitute "on matters relating to the".

(17) Clause 57A, page 50 (after line 29), after paragraph (2)(a), insert:

  (aa) a description of the processesfor determining the grants of financial assistance; and

(18) Clause 58, page 51 (lines 7 to 11), omit the clause, substitute:

58 Health Minister must publish information

(1) As soon as practicable after any of the following amounts have been debited, the Health Minister must publish on the internet information about the grant to which the debit relates:

  (a) an amount debited from the COAG Reform Fund under subsection 21(1);

  (b) an amount debited from the MRFF Health Special Account under subsection 26(1);

  (c) an amount debited from the Medical Research Future Fund Special Account under subsection 29(1).

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the information must include the following:

  (a) the amount of the grant;

  (b) the person or body to whom the grant was paid;

  (c) any other relevant matter.

(19) Clause 62, page 53 (line 32), before "The", insert "(1)".

(20) Clause 62, page 54 (after line 2), at the end of the clause, add:

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must consider whether financial assistance provided under this Act has:

  (a) complemented and enhanced other financial assistance provided by the Commonwealth for medical research and medical innovation, including through the National Health and Medical Research Council; and

  (b) otherwise affected the total amount of other financial assistance provided by the Commonwealth for medical research and medical innovation.

Medical Research Future Fund Bill 2015

HK148

Statement of reasons: why certain amendments should be moved as requests

Section 53 of the Constitution is as follows:

Powers of the Houses in respect of legislation

53. Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate. But a proposed law shall not be taken to appropriate revenue or moneys, or to impose taxation, by reason only of its containing provisions for the imposition or appropriation of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the demand or payment or appropriation of fees for licences, or fees for services under the proposed law.

The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government.

The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.

The Senate may at any stage return to the House of Representatives any proposed law which the Senate may not amend, requesting, by message, the omission or amendment of any items or provisions therein. And the House of Representatives may, if it thinks fit, make any of such omissions or amendments, with or without modifications.

Except as provided in this section, the Senate shall have equal power with the House of Representatives in respect of all proposed laws.

Amendment (1)

The effect of this amendment is to expand the definition of medical innovation. It is covered by section 53 because it increases a proposed charge or burden on the people. The amended definition expands the purposes for which amounts may be paid from the Medical Research Future Fund Special Account established by section 14 of the Medical Research Future Fund Bill 2015, with those payments being made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund under the standing appropriation in section 80 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013.

Medical Research Future Fund Bill 2015

SHEET HK148

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (1)

This amendment provides for a new definition to clarify that medical innovation covers a broad spectrum of activities with an emphasis on outcome, ie, to improve the health and wellbeing of Australians.

The Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) special account is established by clause 14 of the bill, a special account for the purposes of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. The special account sets aside an amount within the Consolidated Revenue Fund to be expended for special purposes. Clause 16 of the Medical Research Future Fund Bill 2015 limits the amount that can be debited from the MRFF (the maximum annual distribution) and that amount is determined by clause 34 of the bill.

Although this amendment may expand the purposes for which amounts may be paid from the MRFF, it does not affect the appropriation for the special account. Because the MRFF is limited in its amount by the maximum annual distribution set in accordance with clause 34, there can be no increased appropriation as a clear, necessary and direct consequence of the amendment.

The Senate has long followed the practice that only an amendment which "clearly, necessarily and directly" affects an appropriation is regarded as an increase in a charge or burden on the people within the meaning of section 53 of the Constitution (Odgers' Australian Senate Practice, 13th edition, p. 394). This amendment does not increase the total amount available under the appropriation (which is limited by the maximum annual distribution). Amending a bill to change the allocation of proposed expenditure and the purposes for which money is to be appropriated has long been considered to be within the power of the Senate, provided that the total proposed (or available) expenditure is not increased.

For these reasons the amendment would not be regarded as a request under the precedents of the Senate.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (12:23): Just before you speak to them, Minister, now that you have moved them, I will ask: is it the wish of the committee that the statement of reasons accompanying the request be incorporated in Hansard immediately after the request to which they relate?

There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment (1) on sheet HK148 has been circulated by the government in the form of a request, for the reasons given in the statement attached to the sheet of amendments. The second statement by the Clerk of the Senate indicates that, under the precedents of the Senate, the amendment would not be regarded as a request.

The third paragraph of section 53 of the Constitution provides that the Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.

Amendment (1) provides for a new definition to clarify that medical innovation covers a broad spectrum of activities with an emphasis on outcome—that is, to improve the health and wellbeing of Australians. Medical innovation projects are to be funded by the Medical Research Future Fund special account, established by clause 14 of the bill. The special account sets aside an amount within the Consolidated Revenue Fund to be expended for special purposes. Clause 16 of the Medical Research Future Fund Bill 2015 limits the amount that can be debited from the fund, an amount determined by clause 34 of the bill.

Although this amendment may expand the purposes for which amounts may be paid from the fund, it does not affect the appropriation for the special account which is limited. There can be no increased appropriation as a clear, necessary and direct consequence of the amendment because the amendment does not increase the total amount available under the appropriation. There is, therefore, no increase in any proposed charge or burden on the people.

The Senate has long followed the practice that only an amendment which 'clearly, necessarily and directly' affects an appropriation is regarded as an increase in a charge or burden on the people within the meaning of section 53 of the Constitution. Amending a bill to change the allocation of proposed expenditure and the purposes for which money is to be appropriated has long been considered to be within the power of the Senate, provided that the total proposed, or available, expenditure is not increased.

Accordingly, the amendment will be dealt with as an amendment.

Thank you, Chair, for that clarification. The government did indeed receive advice from the office of parliamentary counsel that item 1 of the amendment on sheet HK148 should be considered a request under section 53 of the Constitution. However, we understand that the Clerk of the Senate has considered that advice and formed the contrary view, as reflected in your statement just now. I note this difference in view. I signal that the government accepts the view that item 1 is an amendment. It is on that basis that I have moved all of the amendments together.

Most of the amendments directly respond to issues raised in the Senate inquiry and recommendations made in the majority report of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee. Specifically in relation to consultation, one of the concerns raised in the submissions was whether the consumer voice would be sufficiently heard or represented in the decision making. The solution recommended by the community affairs committee was that there be a consultation process through the formulation of the Australian medical research and innovation strategy and the Australian medical research innovation priorities to allow the consumer perspective to be taken into account. The government sees great value in this, and our amendment gives effect to that.

In relation to board composition, a number of submissions made suggestions on the composition of the advisory board, particularly the required expertise and knowledge of members. To incorporate these suggestions we are proposing to require that some of the board members have experience and knowledge in philanthropy and consumer issues relating to health. The amendments also clarify that clinical trial expertise is part of the selection criteria. These additions in the bill will not create a large unworkable advisory board because these do not create new ex officio positions; rather these are additions to the skills criteria for making appointments to the board.

In relation to the qualifying activity, a number of submissions to the Senate inquiry raised concerns that the definition of medical innovation may be unintentionally narrow. In particular there was concern that use of the term 'treatment' within the definition might not encompass investment in diagnosis or prevention. Our amendments clarify that those activities are in scope, and the supplementary explanatory memorandum also names these fields of research along with other qualifying activities that were discussed in the committee hearings. The government fully intends that the definition be a broad one, subject to direction from the advisory board on where the greatest focus should be over time.

In relation to expert advice, a number of submissions suggested there be clarity on the role of expert advice and informing decisions on distribution from the MRFF to enhance the decision-making process for distributions from the MRFF. Our amendments give the health minister an additional power to seek expert advice on the merits of a grant for financial assistance prior to requesting the Minister for Finance to debit an amount from the MRFF special account. This amendment permits delegation of the minister's power to officials as needed to enable efficient and professional administration of spending.

In relation to transparency, to further increase the transparency of distributions from the MRFF we are expanding on our earlier amendment that requires the health minister to publish information on the internet regarding grants. The provision will now cover all categories of grants paid from the MRFF Special Account. This ensures that the online information is comprehensive and complete. A further amendment is proposed to clarify what information is required to be published in relation to grants to ensure it includes the amount of each grant and the identity of the person or body to whom it was paid.

In relation to the decision-making processes, some submissions argued that grants made from the MRFF should be determined through a competitive process consistent with the processes adopted by the NHMRC, but other submissions from leading experts in the medical research field recognise that a competitive process is not possible or appropriate in all situations—for instance, when a rapid decision and response is required such as in dealing with an epidemic. The Senate committee report summarised a number of examples where a peer review or other academic forms of competitive process may not always suit, including where there is greenfields research, a complex multidisciplinary breakthrough or commercialisation or enabling infrastructure are the focus rather than pure research. There may be good reasons why particular decisions have distinctive processes, and the government recognises that it is in the public interest for the nature of all decisions processed to be published.

Our amendments would ensure that the health minister's biannual report to parliament provides transparency by describing the processes used for determining the allocation of grants from the MRFF Health Special Account. There are also some amendments that are self-explanatory in relation to international partnerships, governance review and the review of the act, following on from recommendations made by the committee. But, in relation to the review of the act in particular, as I flagged in my second reading contribution, the government is moving amendments to ensure that the review also includes an assessment of overall levels of federal funding for medical research in order to provide transparency around our assertion that this will increase, not just shift funding for medical research overall.