Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendment to be moved to National Health Reform Amendment (National Health Performance Authority) Bill. The memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 13 September 2011. This parliamentary amendment removes a section of the bill that further consideration has determined would unnecessarily constrain the appointment of members of the performance authority. As section 78 currently stands it would exclude people who have paid employment in the health sector and would result in a very narrow field of potential candidates. High calibre candidates with the relevant experience including those in relation to regional or rural expertise are usually engaged in paid employment in the sector of expertise. This section provides unnecessary constraints upon the authority compared with similar legislation. This section was part of a standard drafting text and was included in this bill by the department and parliamentary counsel, regretfully without a full appreciation of the implications for this authority.

Any conflict of interest would still be governed by other provisions set out in the bill. These provisions require a member to disclose to the minister all interests that conflict or could conflict with the proper performance of the member's functions and inform other performance authority members as soon as they become aware of the interests in the matter being considered by the performance authority. That member may not be present or take part in the consideration of the matter unless the other members determine otherwise. Following this amendment, the bill will represent strong legislation that will deliver increased transparency for all of Australia's health system.

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

I wish to ask a couple of questions in relation to the amendment. The amendment certainly broadens the scope of the legislation. We have been advised that it will ensure that people with relevant experience in the health system and who are still working in the health system will be able to be appointed to the board. I accept what the minister has said, but I do have a question, which is twofold.

First, there was some contention about the nature of the appointments during the committee stage. Section 71 of the legislation talks about the membership of the performance authority. It talks about a chair, a deputy chair and five other members. Subsection (4) of section 72 says that the minister must ensure that at least one member of the performance authority has substantial experience or knowledge and significant standing in a number of fields, and it talks about the healthcare needs of people living in regional and rural areas and the provision of health services in those areas. I accept what the minister has said in relation to that. But what sort of people are envisaged as being appointed, and is it envisaged that a representative of any union will be appointed as a member of the performance authority?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that question, Senator Fierravanti-Wells. There will be a wide range of potential appointees. That has to be approved by COAG. Two of the appointments have already been made—that is, the chair and the deputy chair. All the prospective appointments for the remainder of the positions will come from that wide range of expertise and be approved by COAG.

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

The bill makes provision for the establishment of committees and, again, a procedure in relation to that. Is it envisaged that members of the union will be eligible to serve on those committees?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the particular union official has expertise in the area of consideration then of course they could be considered, but at this point anything would simply be speculation. The government will make its decision about who the remaining five appointees will be, and that will then go to COAG for consideration.

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

In relation to the state of union representation in the health services area at the moment, I would like a little more assurance from the minister as to what that entails precisely. Given what we are seeing revealed on a daily basis in the newspapers and various other places, and in the light of police investigations, I think the Senate deserves a more detailed explanation than the one the minister has given.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot give you a more detailed explanation than that, Senator Fierravanti-Wells. The issue has been the subject of discussion between the parties. There will be a set of criteria to determine the remaining five appointees, and it will then be up to COAG to make a decision about the acceptance or rejection of those additional five people.

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

So, Minister, you are not ruling out that an appointee to the performance authority or any of its committees could be a member of the HSU or any other health union?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All I am saying is that a criterion has been established for the appointment of the remaining five candidates. That process will take place. There will be consideration as to who the five candidates should be, and those appointments will then be taken to COAG for consideration.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that section 78 in item 130 of schedule 1 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: We now move to opposition amendment 1 on sheet 7142 in schedule 1.

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

I foreshadowed this amendment during the second reading debate. Without wanting to reiterate the concerns I raised in that speech, I would say that this bill will establish a whole new bureaucracy that places a lot of demand on health services, hospitals and other providers to provide data. It will be quite an onerous obligation on them. The burden is unchecked. The amendment proposed by the coalition will at least allow an independent assessment of the size of the task and how much red tape is created in the first 12 months. What our amendment goes to is that the minister must cause an independent review of the performance authority to be undertaken no later than 12 months after the commencement of this section. The review should examine the operations and effectiveness of the authority and provide a written report of the review to the minister. It must also include an opportunity for members of the public and healthcare professionals to make written submissions.

Given the extent of the concerns that were raised by a whole range of submissions both in the House of Representatives examination of the matter and in the Senate examination of the matter, because this bill had to come back and because of—let us say—Minister Roxon's less than efficient way of proceeding with this matter, we have had so many explanatory memoranda in relation to this bill. The minister talks about finally coming on board. Well, if Minister Roxon had got her house in order much earlier, Minister, this matter would have come on, but you had to virtually rewrite the bill: (1) because of the concerns; and (2) because Minister Roxon, as with other matters in this so-called health reform, has not quite got her act together.

Having said that, I did want to clarify the record, because it has not been the coalition that has been tardy in this matter; it has been the minister, because there are so many concerns that have been put on the record in committee hearings in relation to this bill. Through our amendment we propose that the review be completed within six months and, obviously, that a copy of that report be placed before each house of parliament. I move amendment (1) on sheet 7142:

(1)   Schedule 1, item 130, page 50 (after line 8), after section 109, insert:

109A Review of the Performance Authority

(1)   The Minister must cause an independent review of the Performance Authority to be undertaken no later than 12 months after the commencement of this section.

(2)   The review must examine the operation and the effectiveness of the Performance Authority and provide a written report of the review to the Minister.

(3)   The review must include an opportunity for members of the public and health care professions to make written submissions.

(4)   The review must be completed within 6 months of the commencement of the review.

(5)   The Minister must cause a copy of a report prepared under subsection (2) to be laid before each House of Parliament within 5 sitting days after the day on which he or she receives the report.

[review of the Performance Authority]

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Needless to say, I reject those criticisms of Minister Roxon. She really has been one of the standout ministers in what has been an excellent government.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Even if you don't believe that.

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

If she's a standout, heaven help us.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Mason, I do believe it. I believe it because it is true. I think that in her heart of hearts even Senator Fierravanti-Wells knows that most of it is true. The government does not oppose this section that would promote transparency in the way that the authority is operating, particularly since this is a body to promote transparency in the delivery of government services. While the length of time before the review should take place is short for a statutory authority, the government expects enough progress will have been be made for a review to undertake a meaningful initial analysis of its operation and effectiveness. The government is happy to support this amendment given the opposition's support for the bill as a whole and its support for the previous amendment.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.