Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The committee is consider the Australian National Preventive Health Agency Bill 2010 and opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 6195 moved by Senator Fierravanti-Wells.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When we finished last night, I was responding to the argument from the opposition as to why these amendments should be adopted. As I indicated last night, the government is not of a mind to agree with the amendments as they are written. I indicated that I thought that, by giving certain classes of people membership of the advisory council, that would indicate that certain classes had a greater right to be part of the advisory council. If we are going to indicate that industry representatives have designated places I think it is therefore reasonable to then indicate that every member of the advisory council should have their class of membership indicated by the legislation.

It is our view that the advisory council should not have prescribed classes as their members. In saying that, can I say that the minister is on the record as saying that consumers will be included. I think that is absolutely essential. The government has agreed to work with industry in having a role to play in the prevention agenda. Work has been proceeding on that. I am aware of a dialogue occurring between the Australian Food and Grocery Council and major supermarkets in order to work towards some voluntary activity to deliver better health outcomes for our community. In conclusion, designating positions for industry representatives on the advisory council is not something that the government wants to contemplate.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Following on from the comment that the minister made, I take the minister to page 15 of the explanatory memorandum. It looks at clause 31 and the appointment of members to the advisory council. It says, ‘While the clause does not specify knowledge or experience requirements for advisory council members’ and talks about ‘expertise’. Do I deduce from your answer that you will be including consumer matters, not necessarily consumer health groups, and that you will only be dialoguing with industry groups? There is a distinction. Perhaps you could clarify that for me. I deduced from your comments that a distinction was made about consumers being included within the parameters of the advisory group and that you would just be talking to industry. That is how I understood the distinction. Could you clarify that for me.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am certainly aware of a piece of work that occurred some time ago. My understanding is that it is continuing. That is the dialogue that was promoted by the Australian Food and Grocery Council, major supermarket chains and others. I recommend that you do not confuse nor conflate that discussion with the membership of the advisory council. If you go to the explanatory memorandum, it is very clear about the expertise that will be required in order to provide well-rounded advice and well-informed advice to the minister. My recommendation is to not confuse the dialogue which was occurring. I am not close to how that is progressing, but it certainly was occurring. That indicates that the government is prepared to talk to industry on a sensible and realistic basis in order to improve health outcomes for consumers. Reading the EM explicitly will answer that question.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is my point, Minister. When you read the explanatory memorandum, it says:

While the clause does not specify knowledge or experience requirements for Advisory Council members, it is anticipated that the following expertise would be represented amongst members ...

Then it lists:

... public administration, business/employer groups, education, intersectoral collaboration, sports and recreation, preventive health including health promotion, community and non-government organisations, consumer issues, social inclusion and disadvantage (including Indigenous Australians), local government, legal/regulatory, and finance

Given that the coalition’s amendment goes specifically to consumer health groups and industry organisations specifically in the manufacture of food and alcohol, I am concerned about understanding why those two important categories have been specifically excluded from what is a highly descriptive and highly inclusive category of people. That is the reason that I am seeking clarification. Minister, with respect, I do not think that your answer addresses the specific question that I asked, and that was about the highly prescriptive—if I can put it that way—description of the membership of the advisory council. They are the two areas that the coalition is very concerned about and they are going to be very much the drivers in relation to consumer health groups. Obviously the manufacture, distribution and marketing of food and beverages, including alcoholic beverages, are very important components, and the two areas have been deliberately excluded.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you read it literally, it says:

… it is anticipated that the following expertise would be represented amongst members …

It is not prescriptive at all. The amendment from the opposition requires that there be representatives of certain sectors. This is a question of whether we want expertise in a general sense. The EM indicates a range of people who, it is anticipated, would be represented, but your amendment goes to identifying at least one and perhaps two positions that would be represented in a formal sense. I go back to my earlier comment. If we were going to prescribe classes for the advisory council, then we would prescribe every seat on that advisory council in a formal way. The alternative way of establishing any committee is to say that we expect that certain groups would have to be included rather than identifying the distinct membership of every seat on that committee. We have not gone down that track. I suggest that your amendment goes only part way down that track. If you were going to do it fully, you would indicate every seat on the advisory council rather than indicate one, or perhaps two, for an identified sector that would have an important conversation, but that is only one part of the conversation. I refer to the comments of Senator Xenophon and Senator Siewert around the desirability of having certain groups there who may have a slightly different view to the preventative health agenda.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could I seek clarification. Could you put on the record, Minister: does that mean that, amongst the members of the council, there will not be represented people from industry, in the broad sense, and consumer health organisations? That is my question.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let us be very clear about your question, because you have given it in the negative. You have asked me whether I can confirm that there will not be industry representatives, and I think my answer is no.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So there will be people from consumer health organisations and from industry broadly defined as having commercial expertise in the manufacture, distribution or marketing of food or beverages, including alcoholic beverages?

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not what I said.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am just trying to seek clarification as to whether—because of comments that were made by Senator Siewert and Senator Xenophon—they are not in the health preventive agenda or, if I can infer from your comments in a general sense, they are not quite on the same page and therefore they are going to be excluded from the dialogue. That is my concern, Senator McLucas, because you really are excluding a very, very large chunk of organisations that are going to have a very important component. If you cannot bring them on board, there is going to be a real problem in terms of focusing change in preventive health. That is really where I am coming from.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are certainly not excluding industry. We talked about the range of expertise that is going to be required. This is neither inclusive nor exclusive of any particular sector.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I will leave it there. I have pursued this matter in an attempt to get some clarification because of the very definitive words used in the explanatory memorandum. It says ‘would’ and you have underlined the word ‘would’. It does not say ‘may include’; it is actually specific and says, ‘would be represented’. I took that to mean that those categories that are specified would be participants on the advisory council; and, because of the clearly defined nature of it, it would be to the exclusion of others. That is the reason I pursued this.

Question put:

That the amendments (Senator Fierravanti-Wells’s) be agreed to.

Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Xenophon, I am prepared to call you if you wish to stand in order to be recognised.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do wish to be recognised, thank you.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I recognise you.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi recognises me as well, Mr Temporary Chairman, so that is all that matters.

The Temporary Chairman:

I am sure that is absolutely true, Senator Xenophon.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The proposed amendment standing in my name that has been circulated in the chamber relates to making the advice of ANPHA public:

The CEO must cause a copy of any advice given or recommendations made in undertaking the CEO’s functions under subsection 11(1) to be published on the ANPHA’s web site within 6 months of providing the advice or making the recommendations.

This is very much about transparency. Initially there was a proposal that this be published within 14 days. I acknowledge that 14 days is too short a period of time and that there needs to be an adequate period of time for the government to consider recommendations made by the agency. But I also think it is important that those recommendations be made public. It is very much in the public interest that those recommendations are out there after a reasonable period of time.

I note that my colleague Senator Siewert from the Australian Greens will be proposing that the period of time be increased from six months to 12 months, and I am quite comfortable about that. I have had discussions with the government about that longer time frame. I think it is fair in the context of this legislation that there is a longer time frame. I have had discussions with Dr Southcott, the member for Boothby, in relation to this. I think it is important that we get the full recommendations. I do not believe that having a summary of recommendations or a precis of recommendations would be adequate. It is important that we see the full recommendations that this body would give to government. Twelve months will be very much in the public interest and will give the government an adequate time frame in which to consider and, if necessary, to act on those recommendations.

So I commend this amendment but I indicate that Senator Siewert may be moving an amendment to increase the period from six months to 12 months.

The Temporary Chairman:

Are you seeking to move the amendment, Senator Xenophon?

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are two ways of doing it, I guess. I will take advice from you, Mr Temporary Chairman, as to whether I move this amendment and Senator Siewert amends it to 12 months. I am in your hands in relation to that.

The Temporary Chairman:

I think it would be simplest if you amended and moved your own amendment.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

(1)    Page 8 (after line 30), after clause 11, insert:

11A  Publication

                 The CEO must cause a copy of any advice given or recommendations made in undertaking the CEO’s functions under subsection 11(1) to be published on the ANPHA’s web site within 12 months of providing the advice or making the recommendations.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We support Senator Xenophon’s amendment and we would like to make a couple of comments. Of course, this will ensure that the CEO has an obligation to provide details of any recommendations made to the government. It addresses concerns that the coalition has raised that the agency lacked independence and transparency. I must say that there was some great concern about this in the original bill. We believe that the recommendation and advice has to be as transparent as possible, and that it should be open to public scrutiny. By increasing public engagement on the issue of preventative health we are encouraging a dialogue between the public, health and industry sectors.

Before the minister makes further comments I will take this opportunity to ask about the breakdown in the original explanatory memorandum to the bill. In the financial impact statement of the original explanatory memorandum there was a breakdown of funds allocated over the forward estimates. However, this breakdown is not provided in the breakdown to the current bill and thereby restricts the extent to which it can be held accountable. I ask the minister if it was deliberate or if it was simply an oversight that the revised explanatory memorandum does not include the forward estimates?

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to make some comments on the amendment. We strongly support the issue of the public release of advice from the agency. We think it is very important. We also recognise that there is a process here while the agency develops its advice and recommendations and we do understand that it takes some time for government to then consider it and perhaps develop its strategy about how to implement it. I understand that process.

The Greens are trying to ensure that there is disclosure of the advice because this is an extremely important issue. I touched on this in my second reading speech yesterday; we believe that if the agency is carrying out its job properly it should report without fear or favour of that information becoming public. It is important information and if it is very good advice it will stand up to public scrutiny. We believe that is important.

We also believe it is important that the government should be held accountable and have to explain why it does not accept particular pieces of advice or recommendations from the agency, if that should occur. The government should also be held accountable for why it did not accept a particular piece of advice or if it went in a different direction but supported some of it. That is why I planned to move a similar amendment, although mine was for 12 months. If Senator Xenophon’s amendment is passed I will, of course, withdraw my amendment. That is why we thought a 12-month period was an acceptable length of time between the advice being given and it being made publicly available. We support Senator Xenophon’s amendment.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To the question from Senator Fierravanti-Wells: the change to the explanatory memorandum goes to the question of the delay in the passage of this bill. There has been no change in the actual overall funding in those figures, to be frank. There has been no change to the funding for the agency and related proposed expenditure. I can refer you to where you can find those figures in the PBS. It is to do with the delay in passage of the legislation. In that respect, in order to be accurate that is how it had to be changed.

I will now go to the substantive question, and that is the amended amendment from Senator Xenophon. I confirm to the Senate that the agency has to be independent and it has to be able to provide independent advice to the minister, and in doing so the agency has to be able to provide frank and fearless advice to the minister. It would concern me that an officer of the agency could, if they were compelled to publish all advice to the minister, potentially temper that advice. That advice, therefore, may not be as frank and fearless as a good democratic institution would desire.

There is a potential that there would be a tempering—and I use that word rather than watering down—of advice by a public servant who is trying to predict what a government may want. I do not think that is good or sound for the operations of our democracy. We are worried that this amendment would compromise the agency’s capacity to provide that advice to health ministers and therefore to the Commonwealth government.

That is quite a precedent that we would be setting here. I appeal to the Liberal Party in its support of this type of amendment to think about what sort of precedent for other pieces of legislation this is going to create. This requirement to publish all advice is something that does not occur in our democracy. I ask the Liberal and National parties to contemplate what sort of precedent is being set here.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells, you used the word ‘details’—that is not what the amendment says. The amendment says: ‘The CEO must cause a copy of any advice’. It is very clear. I suggest this is quite a significant change from the approach that your party had in government, and have now, to dealing with legislation.

Coming back to Senator Xenophon’s point, whilst we are saying that the advice needs to be frank and fearless, the authority needs to be independent and its advice needs to be provided to a minister in a transparent way. There will be enormous transparency in this organisation. It is important to note that the agency will be subject to the usual Public Service statutory agency checks and balances. It will be required to publish an annual report, to provide strategic plans on its proposed work and to publish a report on the state of preventative health in Australia every two years, and its CEO will appear at estimates. Senators will be able to question the CEO at Senate estimates, to peruse an annual report and to go through all the processes that we expect in our government structures.

For those reasons, we cannot agree to support this amendment. However—and this is a discussion you may have, Senator Xenophon, with Senator Siewert—if you were to require the CEO to publish a summary, rather than a copy, of its advice and recommendations, that would address my concern about the ability of the agency to provide the open, frank and fearless advice that we are expecting of it. That would make the government more amenable to accepting the amendments, if they were to carry. But I absolutely, firmly, say that we are not going to support the amendment in its current form—we will not support an amendment along those lines. Given the position of the opposition, something that I do not think would compromise the function of this agency—and this is quite a serious point—would be the requirement for some sort of summary document within the 12 months of provision of advice. That may be considered. But, once again, I underline that we would not support it on a vote. I thank the Senate and indicate that the government will not be agreeing to Senator Xenophon’s amendment.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I respond comprehensively to the government’s position in relation to this, Senator McLucas, do you envisage that the CEO of that agency will be appearing at estimates?

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the CEO acknowledge that the advice and recommendations will be subject to freedom of information requests?

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Xenophon, I think your question is: will the CEO turn up at Senate estimates? My advice is that the CEO will, definitely, and of course will also be subject to FOI requests.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With respect to the government, I do not see the point of opposing this amendment. It allows for a structure of transparency and openness so that the recommendations made by this body in relation to preventative health will be published on the net for all Australians to see. If the government acknowledges that these recommendations would be subject to freedom of information requests anyway, what is wrong with having a formal structure in place that deals with these so that we know that, within 12 months of such advice being given, it will be made public?

Senator McLucas says that the organisation needs to give frank and fearless advice to the minister—and, in some way, requiring these documents will not allow for that. With respect, I see that as quite a specious argument. The fact is that these documents will, in any event, be subject to FOI and to scrutiny through the estimates process. I think it is important that we have a process to require these documents to be made public within 12 months of the advice being given. The minister says the agency will be a democratic institution and that that is why it is important that we have transparency in relation to this. If the Australian National Preventive Health Agency is to be an independent and effective body which will investigate and make recommendations about what preventative health strategies should be introduced or revised, why shouldn’t its recommendations be made publicly available?

The 12-month time frame suggested by Senator Siewert is a sensible time frame; I acknowledge that. It will give ample time for the government to consider, to review and to implement to varying degrees recommendations by the agency. If the agency makes recommendations that the government fundamentally disagrees with then it can say so. I am sure the government can prosecute its case if it believes that the agency is making an unreasonable or impractical recommendation. But ministers and governments must not have the capacity to ignore or reject out of hand important research based preventative health recommendations, certainly not without providing its reasons for doing so. I would have thought that formalising a structure to allow for the recommendations and advice given by this body to be made public would strengthen it rather than weaken it. In any event, the fact is that this information will be subject to FOI and the estimates process—why not have a system in place whereby we will get to see the advice given to the government on the expiration of 12 months? I commend this amendment to my colleagues. I think there would be inherent dangers in having a summary. It could be subject to a debate as to what has been left in or out. I think having the whole advice is a much preferable course of action.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a new dialogue. We are setting up this agency and it is basically going to tell Australians what they can eat, what they can drink and how they should conduct their lives. For some people this is a nanny state gone absolutely crazy. That may be the view of some people out in the community, but the reality is it is a new dialogue that must be had with the community and we are going to have to change community attitudes. So in that respect I support what Senator Xenophon is saying. I really do think that for full openness and transparency we really do want public engagement and public involvement and, if we are going to have a process, that the agency be open to scrutiny. This is probably the most open to scrutiny that we can have.

I have been the opposition spokesperson on health and ageing in the Senate and over time, in preparation for various estimates, I have delved through the many lists of reports that have been commissioned by the government in the preventative health space. One of the things that really concerns me is that when you go through the list of reports that have been tendered—some subject to tender, some not subject to tender—there are a long list of reports that have been commissioned from consultants that have not been released and that are not available in the public arena in relation to preventative health. I have touched on this in estimates, and it really does concern me. It concerns me even more in the context of my previous comments about the government’s reasons for refusing to support the coalition’s strong push to have industry representation and consumer health organisations on there. This is going to affect many facets of the daily lives of Australians, and I really do think that we should be fully open, fully transparent about this organisation. We need to know what sort of advice is being given and why that advice may or may not be followed in the context of what this agency is going to recommend to government. On that basis we will be supporting Senator Xenophon’s amendment.

I do want to ask the minister some questions. This first question touches on this issue of transparency. In the financial impact statement there is a reference to $102 million for national level social marketing campaigns targeting obesity and smoking. I ask the minister: why do these social marketing campaigns not relate to other matters? Ought they not also relate to the promotion of a healthy lifestyle and good nutrition, minimising the harmful drinking of alcohol and discouraging substance abuse, for example?

The other question I ask is: why has social marketing not been defined? The government needs to provide clarification as to what the scope of social marketing is. Research has shown that social marketing campaigns carried out in isolation are inadequate in influencing behavioural change and it is important that the agency, in terms of its capacity to operate and integrate with other measures, is working collaboratively with industry. Particularly in light of the comments I made earlier about consumer health organisations and the industry involvement, if they are not going to be represented on the advisory council, in fairness Australians should know what advice is being provided to government and the response, particularly in relation to those two very important measures.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will respond to Senator Fierravanti-Wells’ questions first, if you do not mind, Senator Xenophon. Essentially that $102 million indicates what we are doing in the first tranche. So that piece of work will be focused on the questions around obesity and smoking. As she would be aware, we have quite a considerable amount of money in social marketing around the abuse of alcohol. That is already underway. That does not indicate that that is the only piece of social marketing that will be undertaken by the authority ever; this is just the first tranche.

You asked: why don’t we define social marketing? I think the answer is inherent in the comments you made. Social marketing has to be responsive and diverse. You cannot say it is advertising—you cannot say it is pictures on buses. By the nature of technology in Australia, it is changing almost minute by minute. If you defined social marketing five years ago, you would not include SMS in it. Now we do. So let us leave social marketing as something that we all naturally understand, and then it can respond to the changing ways that our communities, and particularly some of our target communities in this space, will be communicating with each other. We all know what social marketing means. It used to be defined as advertising when I was a little girl. Now we call it social marketing intentionally so that we capture all of the potential ways of influencing behaviour.

Senator Xenophon, this is quite a considerable precedent that you are asking the authority to set in the way that advice is provided by public servants to governments. This is a significant shift from the system that we have at the moment where the Public Service is there to provide excellent, well-briefed, well-researched advice to government. That is its job, and it is tasked to provide it in the baldest way: ‘Tell us the facts and then when we have all of those facts decisions can be made.’ My concern with your amendment is that that encourages the Public Service to behave in a different way than we would ordinarily expect of it. It would then be tailoring advice to try to understand or pre-empt what the government of the day is thinking. We have seen examples of that in our history in Australia, where public servants have attempted to think ahead of where a minister or a government may be thinking.

That is dangerous. I go back to your words: ‘A copy of any advice’. If that is required to be placed on the internet within 12 months of giving out advice, public servants, because they are human beings, will change their behaviour. We would be making a significant precedent if we passed your amendment today. I do encourage you to contemplate looking at the potential of a summary to be provided. I do take your point that once a summary is provided the next question is, ‘What did you leave out?’ Then I go to the point that we have Senate estimates, we have the fact that the CEO will appear in front of Senate estimates and we have the opportunity for FOI under the normal constructs of FOI. On your earlier point, where you said that FOI would reveal all anyway, there are rules around FOI, as you would know probably more than most, that go to third-party considerations and the public interest test. You made the point: ‘Why don’t you do it anyway, because we will get it through FOI?’ There are rules around FOI, as you know. I think the institutional structures we have around transparency will give the sort of scrutiny you are looking for. To take it to the next step—and that is a requirement that all advice is published—I think that may diminish the power of the authority in a long run, and that would be a shame.

You recognise that our government is one of the first governments—the first government, I think—in the history of Australia that has decided that preventative health investment is the way to improve the quality of life in our country. I would hate to think that that goal could be diminished by this amendment, where the upshot could very well be that we have public servants in the authority a bit scared of telling it like it is. That would be a failing. That would be, I think, unfortunate. It would be terrible if it resulted in decisions being made not on the basis of good information. So I encourage you to look at the alternative, as I have indicated, as a way to potentially solve your concerns but also ensure that those who work in the authority will be providing the best information to the minister and the government so they can make the best decisions in terms of the health of this nation.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator McLucas for her response. This is a new agency. It is supposed to give robust and independent advice to government. I cannot see the downside for government if that advice is released after a period of 12 months on the basis that the government does not have to adopt that advice. I think it is important, given the resources being put into this agency and given the importance of preventative health, to actually allow a process whereby the public—the people of Australia; the taxpayers who are paying for this agency—can see what advice is being given. If we want to talk about the whole issue of robust and fearless advice, let’s look at an example of an entity that has been in the news lately—the Productivity Commission. Governments cannot tell the Productivity Commission what advice it should give. The commission regularly gives advice that is made public in its memoranda, its reports and its inquiries that is out there for all to see. I think that enhances the public policy debate. This agency also has a very important role in enhancing the public policy debate in relation to health, particularly preventative health. That is why I think it is important that this agency publishes its recommendations, its advice, after 12 months has elapsed. I do not think anyone would accuse the Productivity Commission of being timid or fettered or frustrated by virtue of its reports be made public, and I think the same argument ought to apply here.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a good way of having the discussion. The Productivity Commission has a completely different role to what this organisation will have. The PC does, as you are aware, a whole range of fundamental research work. It will inquire into an issue, whatever it may be, and provide a considered opinion which then goes into the public arena as a matter of course. That is what happens. Any advice that goes to the minister outside of that commissioned request that the PC undertakes under your provision would then be published. I do not think that is the point you are making; the point you are making is that reports from the PC are published, and that is its role to inform public debate. What your amendment in this debate does is require any advice to the minister to be published—not a commissioned report, not a piece of research, but any advice. I think the distinction is quite clear. The PC has a completely different role in the way our systems work in this country to what the authority will have. It undoubtedly will publish research documents—it will undoubtedly conduct research—but it is important to equate the role of the authority with the role of the PC. It is such a different role.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In supporting Senator Xenophon, first of all I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers answered my question about the consultancies. I did raise that issue and perhaps I should have framed it in that context. At this point I am not sure if the parliamentary secretary has information available on those. I would really be interested to know the number of consultancies, reports, reviews or research on preventative health which has been commissioned and paid for but which has not been released out in the public arena. I am concerned about the balance and the potential balanced approach of the advisory council and the advice that it would give. From the sound of things and from what the parliamentary secretary has said, I do not think there is going to be too much industry representation on this council, nor do I think that there are going to be consumer health organisations there, given the priority that the government has put on social marketing in this agency. That is the bulk of the cost of the setting up of this agency and it will be social marketing versus other priorities such as research, program delivery and transparency.

I think it is really important that the Australian public is made aware of that advice, how that social marketing is undertaken, how that social marketing is interpreted and how that social marketing could in turn be used to try and change attitudes of the Australian public, given that the parliamentary secretary says that effectively the cost structure of this organisation has been shifted over the forward estimates. If you look at the first explanatory memorandum that breaks down the cost, you can see that the bulk of the spending is going to be on social marketing, it is going to be on obesity and smoking, and they are going to be the priority over the next three years—or certainly that is what it indicated in the explanatory memorandum. I think the public are entitled to know what this agency is doing in its attempts to change in particular obesity, smoking and other things that may also come out in its work in those areas, how those social marketing campaigns are carried out and how those social marketing campaigns will interact with other areas to influence behavioural change.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not respond to one of Senator Xenophon’s points in his earlier contribution. Senator Xenophon said something along the lines that you cannot see the downside if this information is released and the public can see everything as it is coming through the estimates process et cetera. My point is that the net result of Senator Xenophon’s amendment would happen prior to that point and that potentially there could be a change in the type of advice that is being provided. So no, I do not disagree that would be the downside if everything is released. I cannot disagree with that. Yes, the public will be able to see. My concern is that the behaviour may change prior to the document being written. That is the point I am trying to make.

With respect to Senator Fierravanti-Wells, I am advised that every document that the task force commissioned was published. There were three background papers that were written in the early days of the operation of the task force. They were on alcohol, tobacco and obesity. The purpose of those background papers was to inform the members of the task force, to give them a basis and an understanding across the breadth of the issues that they were going to deal with; so that information was available to inform them. But every document that was commissioned by the task force was proudly published by our government so that the information could be provided to the community.

We are a government that is interested in changing the health of this nation. To do that, information should definitely be made available because, as you said, information will potentially change behaviour. It is quibbling, to be frank, to be focused on three background papers that were part of the process of getting to a monumental document, which was the report of the preventive health task force. Hopefully in history, there will be a point in time that health writers look back to and say, ‘That is the time when Australia changed the way we deal particularly with alcohol, tobacco and obesity.’

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am relying on answers that were provided through the estimates process, Minister. I am happy and I will separately identify those reports that have not been released. My question did not go to the agency; it just went broadly to preventative health.

This government has been talking about preventative health for a long time and we are finally here. That is fine; so did the previous government, and I think that in my speech I did put that on the record. But I just make the point that the reason I asked the question, Minister, was not to quibble. The reason I asked the question was that in answers that were provided to me through the estimates process it was clear that certain reports had not been released, and that was the basis upon which I made my comments. If you have more up-to-date information now in relation to that, or perhaps if at some stage separate to this the department wishes to provide me with that information, I am happy to receive that. But I did want to state for the record that I asked that question on the basis of material that had been provided to me at estimates. If that is out of date then that is the reason.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fierravanti-Wells, I am advised that the answer I have given you traverses the same questions you asked at Senate estimates. I understand that you put a question on notice. That is still being dealt with. The answer to your question is that everything that the task force commissioned was published—absolutely everything. There were three background papers that were devised to inform members of the task force across the breadth of the three areas that were going to be contemplated and they were provided for information and education, really, of those people who sat on the task force.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.