Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Mental Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the provisions of the Medical Research Future Fund Bill 2015 and the Medical Research Future Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2015 on behalf of the opposition. These bills finally give effect to the government's stated intention to establish the Medical Research Future Fund, having announced its intention in the 2014-15 budget some 18 months ago. It is true to say that these bills have had a very long gestation period and now, it would seem, a fairly quick birth. I will leave that to others to explain.

The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee only held a hearing on 4 August 2015, just last week, and the report of the committee was only tabled yesterday afternoon. I certainly am hopeful that the speed that we are now proceeding with does not result in any errors, oversights or omissions. The haste with which this process is occurring does warrant an explanation, and I have to say it puts the crossbench in a somewhat difficult position to deal with the bills in the way that we are. However, I do wish to thank the secretariat of the Senate Community Affairs Committee, including staff who were co-opted for their work in conducting the hearing and also for the preparation of the report. I also think those who wrote submissions to the inquiry and the witnesses who appeared.

I now move to the substance of the bills. As I said, these bills finally give effect to the government's intention to set up a Medical Research Future Fund, but they fail to meet the policy objectives the government itself set in announcing this fund. When it was first announced the government promised:

Fund earnings will be directed to medical research, primarily by boosting funding for the National Health and Medical Research Council …

But now it is clear that, instead, there is no formal role for the NHMRC in administering MRFF disbursements. The government has refused to work with Labor to consider how the NHMRC, an 80-year-old institution that has universal respect, could have a role in assessing applications and administering MRFF disbursements. The government has failed to do this, despite significant support from the sector for a formal process of expert review to be reflected in the bill and consistent support for some formal recognition of the role of the NHMRC. I intend to explore that support in some detail.

Labor agrees with some of the principles established in the bill and that a new health and medical research innovation strategy should be developed to set the agenda for the MRFF funding. But these bills allow for the minister of the day to make decisions that are not subject to the same sorts of peer review that are followed by the NHMRC. Indeed, former NHMRC CEO Prof. Warwick Anderson, now the secretary general of the international Human Frontier Science Program organisation, provided answers to questions on notice specifically supporting a greater role for the NHMRC and a process of peer review to identify what is value for money and what is not. Specifically, Professor Anderson said:

I support the concept of the MRFF advisory committee setting the strategy for the MRFF through consultation, and the NHMRC administering the majority of the funding. When judging how to use public money for research only peer review can identify what is favourable and what is not. NHMRC's almost 80 years of effective, ethical and efficient service to the Australian community means that public trust in the MRFF will be maintained if NHMRC plays the major role in administering the earnings of the fund in accord with the advisory board strategy.

He goes on:

NHMRC's current act allows simple and recently established ways to proceed, if the MRFF funds are provided to NHMRC outside the NHMRC's Medical Research Endowment Account (as is the case with the current government dementia research initiative).

He concludes:

Coordination between the MRFF and NHMRC will be essential if the greatest good is be gained from the MRFF for the benefit of Australia.

The government itself promised that fund earnings would be directed to medical research, primarily by boosting funding for the National Health and Medical Research Council. So it is deeply concerning that, having spent more than a year talking about this fund, the government has not done the work to establish a fund that meets those principles the government first announced.

I acknowledge, through the consequential amendments, that the CEO of the NHMRC is to have a role on the Australian Medical Research Advisory Board, but there is not enough clarity to this point about how that will operate.

The Senate is being asked a lot, in dealing with these bills, to take the government at its word. Despite not properly consulting and not establishing a bill that is based on comprehensive consultation and a robust funding mechanism, the Senate is being asked to trust that the government will sort these details out later. But, frankly, this government has proven itself to be comprehensively untrustworthy and to be capable of politicising almost any issue. Particularly in this department, this government has politicised almost every issue that has come in front of us.

So, what reassurances are there that this fund could not be used to support research into the health impact of wind farms or research into chemtrails. The minister of the day gets to make final funding decisions, based on no process of peer review to identify what is valuable and what is not. It seems that the Greens are happy to support this position—to support the minister making funding decisions not based on any independent peer review process, which leaves wide open the possibility of this government directing funding to its own pet projects to fund research into, as I said, the health impact of wind farms, and to fund its own election promises.

The risk in the way the government is seeking to set up this fund is not just that the best research—that is, the most meritorious research—misses out on funding, but that the loudest voice at the table catches the minister's ear and is ultimately awarded funding for this reason alone.

Dr Phoebe Phillips, the President of the Australian Society for Medical Research, and a researcher into pancreatic cancer, at the Lowy Cancer Research Centre, told the Community Affairs Committee's inquiry:

We do a lot of work with the community and I think that taxpayers really want to know that their money is going towards funding the best possible high-quality research that delivers health outcomes. All the evidence based on peer review in this country—and we have done a lot of this work in this space with independent commissioned reports—suggests that NHMRC peer review has actually been very successful in delivering better outcomes.

Again, I think what we do not want to happen is the loudest speaker being able to approach the Minister for Health and say, 'I have this problem, let's get some money here.' It needs to be peer reviewed so that rigorous questions are asked to actually determine whether it is a feasible study, whether it is a clinical trial or whether it is basic research leading to a discovery trial. As pointed out, how is an individual, group or a team going to measure the outcomes and have an accurate time line which can be judged? I think that is the expectation of taxpayers.

In regard to NHMRC's integrity, they have been around for 75 years in this space and that peer review system has improved greatly over time.

We know that investment into health and medical research through the peer review has really put Australia as one of the leaders in health and medical research.

As I said earlier, it is not just Labor senators who have called for greater transparency, for a process of peer or expert review, and for a formal role for the NHMRC in administering disbursements. There were many witnesses at the inquiry who concurred with that view. I point senators to the Australian Clinical Trials Alliance, who told this to the committee, and also the Group of Eight Universities and the innovative university sector.

Returning to the specifics of the bill, and the way the government wants to make disbursements from the MRFF, the bill also allows for the Minister for Finance to direct credits to the MRFF Health Special Account for the purpose of making grants of financial assistance to medical research institutes, non-profit organisations, universities and corporations. This remains very concerning for Labor. Again, this means that without any oversight from an independent advisory panel, without a peer review process, without consulting the NHMRC, or even distributing funding at arm's length through the NHMRC, the government can for all intents and purposes direct credits from the MRFF to any pet project it wants.

We know that the idea for this fund came about just weeks before the last budget, which is something the government has been embarrassed about ever since. So you would have thought the Treasurer and Minister for Health would have actually done some policy work to properly develop this fund, but they have not. What is most concerning about the way the government is seeking to establish this fund is the lack of proper governance surrounding the way its disbursements will be made.

Labor, of course, is the biggest supporter of health and medical research in this place. We demonstrated this in government through a commitment of more than $3.5 billion in health and medical research funding. This included more than $700 million to build and upgrade health and medical research facilities right across the country. We also commissioned the landmark McKeon Strategic Review of Health and Medical Research, to provide a long-term vision for governments and for the sector. The review made it clear that a levy like the Abbott government's GP tax was not the ideal nor preferred method for funding medical research in Australia, and we continue to agree with this. That is also why we do not believe that the government should continue its freeze on Medicare rebates. The inevitable outcome of this will be a GP tax worse than that proposed in last year's budget and a collapse in bulk-billing rates.

The McKeon review provides a 10-year road map as to how health and medical research can be supported for the benefit of all Australians, but these bills in no way reflect that vision. From Labor's perspective it is especially disappointing that the government has not used this legislation as an opportunity to pursue the recommendations in the McKeon review. Specifically, the government has missed the opportunity firstly to embed research into the health system and secondly to implement the review recommendations to establish integrated health research centres, accelerate clinical trial reforms and support health and medical research workforce retention—the training and support recommendations. It has completely missed the opportunity to support co-investment from philanthropic and other sources, and missed any opportunity to identify new funding sources. Mr McKeon recommended identifying 'other possible funding sources such as alternative debt finance, R&D tax incentives and levies, and schemes such as research prizes'. The government completely ignored those recommendations in establishing this fund.

The fund was meant to be operational on 1 January 2015. It is a reflection of the chaotic and dysfunctional two years we have had with this government that it has only now finally got around to introducing another one of its so-called signature policies. It really does beggar belief that, having not done the policy work in announcing this fund, delaying its introduction by more than six months, the government still has not done the work on setting up a fund with proper governance structures.    It is emblematic, though, of how this government politicises every issue and of its chaotic and dysfunctional mismanagement of the health portfolio.

It is worth putting on record the cuts that have been made to support this fund. This is where the money is ostensibly coming from. Billions of dollars have been cut from public hospital funding; more than half a billion dollars cut from public dental programs; $400 million cut from preventive health programs; and hundreds of millions of dollars cut from the health flexible funds that support vital drug and alcohol rehabilitation services and important work undertaken by organisations like the Heart Foundation, the Cancer Council, the Consumer Health Forum and the Public Health Association. There have been cuts to veterans' dental and allied health programs, cuts to the Healthy Kids Check, cuts to the electronic health records program, cuts to the Partners in Recovery mental health program—and the list goes on. So Labor is right to be sceptical about this government's intentions. We have long said that we always support sensible measures to grow and support health and medical research, but not at the expense of sick Australians today.

While all this has been happening, Labor has been undertaking its own policy development process, consulting with health and medical research leaders and researchers across the country to develop the best system we can. We will move amendments to these bills that reflect those principles. Labor's amendments will add integrity to the bills and reflect in many ways how grants are administered by the NHMRC through its act. It beggars belief that, despite first promising that funds from the MRFF would principally be distributed through the NHMRC, the government has included no formal role for the NHMRC. I want to make it clear that while Labor will not oppose this bill, because we do support health and medical research—indeed we are the strongest supporters of health and medical research in this place—we do not support a discretionary funding mechanism that leaves open the possibility that the health minister of the day can just fund the projects of their choosing. In government, Labor would seek to amend the NHMRC Act to ensure that similar processes are followed for MRFF disbursements as we follow for disbursements from the Medical Research Endowment Account.

Labor agree that research different from what the NHMRC has traditionally funded should be funded through the MRFF, so we do support the development of a new Australian Medical Research and Innovation Strategy as the basis on which these priorities can be identified and projects that have a stronger focus on translational research, clinical trials, and commercialisation can be awarded funding. We also agree that this additional investment should be quarantined from the existing allocation through the Medical Research Endowment Account, and we would make sure this is reflected. I will refer during the committee stage to the intention of our amendments.

Labor has always supported, in word and in deed, health and medical research. Our health and medical researchers do amazing work. For a country of our population size, we as Australians can be proud of the research outcomes from our tax dollars. We can also be proud of the results that our dedicated research community achieve. Labor supports building on this success by growing the translational research that many in the community also support. But the way the government has gone about getting to this point has been less than ideal. The time between inquiry and tabling and now dealing with the legislation has been truncated, which has been problematic for many, including some on the crossbench. The funding sources have been divisive in the community, pitting the desirability of increased funding for health and medical research against access to health services for people who are currently sick and need support now. For one of this government's so-called signature policies, this has been a messy process. The Australian research community will watch this government closely. The policy intent must be achieved both now and into the future.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Medical Research Future Fund Bill 2015 and the Medical Research Future Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2015 establish the Medical Research Future Fund, which involves the crediting and debiting of funds and the governance and administration of the fund itself. The Greens are strong supporters of health and medical research and we support the intention of the Medical Research Future Fund—that is, strategies that will prioritise and foster innovation and translational research. Health and medical research represents some of the very best of what Australia can offer and some of the very best of the economic opportunities for the generation ahead. It is with some pleasure that I can say that in my hometown of Melbourne we have some of the greatest medical research minds in the country. We have people like Professor Brendan Crabb from the Burnet Institute and Professor Doug Hilton from the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, all of whom have been not only incredibly important contributors to the medical research effort in the Australian nation but also very strong advocates and supporters for the establishment of a medical research future fund.

It is the Greens' view that a 21st century economy needs to be built on our minds, not simply on minds. We have the clinical research capacity that exists in very few countries across the world that allows us to be able to conduct the sort of groundbreaking research that is not just simply elemental research but carries right through the spectrum to translational research and commercialisation. The Greens spoke in the election of a science package that would commit three per cent of GDP to research by the year 2020. It is a package that consists of a combined $750 million boost to the Australian Research Council and to national cooperative research centres, funding for indirect costs associated with health and medical research—and that is a huge drag on medical research in that the research is funded but the indirect administrative costs are not—moving towards default five-year grants in ARC and NHMRC through those grant processes and ensuring that we recognise people with a proven track record, $342 million to reverse the cuts that the government implemented to the Sustainable Research Excellence program and another several hundred million dollars in the area of a national research infrastructure facilities council. I could go on. There would be opportunities for international collaboration, ongoing future fellowships schemes, open access publishing of government funded research and more targeted support for commercialisation. That leads on to one of the great advantages of something like the Medical Research Future Fund, which has a very strong focus not just on primary elemental research driven research but on identified strategic areas where we can move to bridge the huge gap that exists between those primary areas of research and translation and commercialisation.

I do understand that people have expressed some concerns around the proposed legislation that is before us. Certainly the Greens raised very serious questions about what the primary driver of the genesis of this legislation was. It was implemented at a time where we had a government that was very keen to introduce a GP co-payment and it is very hard to escape the conclusion that this was drafted after that decision in order to sweeten what was a very poor area of public policy. However, the Greens, like many people within the medical research community, were keen to ensure that one of the very few good ideas that has come from this government was not jettisoned simply because it was associated with one area of poor policy. We understand that some other issues have been addressed around the bill—issues of governance, how we define translational research and the role of the NHMRC in the process—and I will talk to those in a moment.

It has to be said, though, that this fund is a fund that sits amongst some other areas of government policy where this government has been prepared to go in precisely the opposite direction to the direction that we appear to be going in here when it comes to medical research. Look at climate change, for example, and the backward steps that we are taking in investing in the sort of research that needs to be done in order to ensure that we are able to mitigate and adapt to catastrophic global warming. Look at the lack of investment in our university sector, cuts to the CSIRO and to R&D budgets and so on and you will see a government that is underinvesting in the sort of transformation that is necessary in order to drive a modern 21st century economy.

Going to the details of the fund, which is one small, shining light in a long tunnel of darkness, we have a fund where we will see $400 million available over the four years until June 2019, and of course we want to ensure that good governance and review processes accompany this package. In fact, our amendments have sought to ensure that what we do get is an improved governance process as well as a return on some of the serious commercial gains that might be made as a result of public investment. As I said, I think it is important to ensure that, given there is a debate about the role of the NHMRC in this process, it is understood that the Medical Research Future Fund does have a different focus to the NHMRC. As somebody who has been a long-time supporter of the NHMRC, an organisation that has a very long history of safeguarding and supporting health and medical research and giving advice to the community and government on drafting guidelines on so many important areas in health, I think it is important that we establish governance processes that are robust. To that end, it must be said that there are concerns around the degree to which the governance processes will leave this fund open to political interference, and I think we need to address that issue head on.

The first thing to say is that the NHMRC itself is not immune to government interference, despite its very impressive track record and despite its being an organisation that has shown itself to be an exemplar in many areas of scientific research. The NHMRC is now committed to investing several hundreds of thousands of dollars into research on the impact of wind turbines on people's health. The point here is that it is impossible to protect any organisation from political interference, and we know that the history of that decision was a decision that was very directly influenced by political considerations. However, we are assured that one of the changes to the legislation is that the bill requires the advisory board—and let's be clear that there is an independent advisory board—will be established to administer these funds. That board will be made up of medical and scientific experts, all of whom are very protective of their professional reputations and would take very dimly to the suggestion that their decisions will be influenced based on political considerations, but the legislation does require the advisory board to take into account the NHMRC's national strategy for medical research and public health research—that is, it will be directed by those priorities that have already been identified by the NHMRC.

We now know that Professor Kelso, the CEO of the NHMRC, will be given the opportunity to contribute to the development of the strategy that will guide the decisions of the advisory board—that is, the medical research and innovation strategy. The NHMRC will play a key role in drafting that strategy through Professor Kelso, who will be part of that advisory board. In her role as the CEO of the NHMRC she will ensure that the Medical Research Future Fund and the NHMRC strategies are aligned and complimentary. Professor Kelso has also reassured us that she will be able to draw on the NHMRC's wealth of experience and advice from its council and principle committee, and it will be critical to have her involvement on the advisory board.

The next thing that needs to be said is that Professor Kelso has also said that, if any Medical Research Future Fund funds are directed to the NHMRC for disbursement, the NHMRC will adapt those processes and draw on whatever expertise is necessary to make particular recommendations to government. I would urge the minister to ensure that that suggestion is taken up, with an undertaking to exercise that as a principle across the board. Having the NHMRC's CEO on the decision making panel is critical, and we are satisfied that that will make a significant different to the decisions and the complementarity between the NHMRC and the Medical Research Future Fund.

We think there is a role, though, for some government discretion. We take Senator McLucas' points about the concerns, but we have been reassured that those concerns have been addressed through the advisory panel and the role of NHMRC on that advisory board. There are times when governments do need to determine the research priorities very quickly. In fact, we heard from the Association of Australian Medical Research Institutes, which described the example of a global pandemic where there is an imperative to direct our research priorities, for example, towards the development of a vaccination or other time critical research priorities. There it is necessary that there should be some flexibility for governments to be able to intervene in extraordinary circumstances, and there is a consensus that any involvement from government should be on the basis of an extraordinary circumstance like that rather than being the default position. Again I reiterate that the reputations of very distinguished medical researchers and scientists as well as the CEO of the NHMRC are at stake should political imperatives influence the decisions of the Medical Research Future Fund.

I think that it is also important to note that the investment that is contained within the Medical Research Future Fund will be determined by a similar investment mandate to that determined by the Future Fund. It will differ around return and so on, but one of the things that the Greens have been very keen to ensure is that the Future Fund's policy—something that was achieved through the advocacy and work of the Greens—of not investing in tobacco products would be something that would apply to the Medical Research Future Fund. In fact, we have been assured that, while the Medical Research Future Fund can invest in any financial instrument, it would also act consistently with the Future Fund's policy around excluding investments in tobacco companies and cluster munitions. The Medical Research Future Fund will maintain a list of entities that are excluded under the board's ownership rights and the ESG risk management policy that applies within the Future Fund—that is, an exclusion on tobacco companies and cluster munition companies. We are pleased that that change has been made.

Let me conclude by saying that we absolutely understand the concerns that have been expressed by the Labor Party in terms of the risk of political interference. We have worked to ensure through our amendments that that risk is minimised. We have also worked to ensure through our amendments that there may be some potential for Australians to get a return on any successful project—by the word 'successful' I mean a commercially successful project. There should be some capacity for the Australian community to get a return on that investment. We have also—through amendments suggested to the government that we will discuss again later in the committee stage—sought to ensure that NHMRC funding is protected and that this Medical Research Future Fund is not used as a vehicle through which to shift investment dollars away from entities like the NHMRC to direct them towards another fund.

In summary, we support the concept of a medical research future fund. We think that it is important to prioritise investment in translational funding and the commercialisation of projects. It is one of the very few good ideas that this government has come up with over its brief and chaotic period in government. It stands in direct contrast to the agenda it has to cut investment in funding science, research and innovation. But, where there are good ideas, the Greens are prepared to support them and we look forward to continuing this debate during the committee stage of the bill.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was the last bit of Senator Di Natale's contribution that I think was the most important. He committed the Australian Greens to looking carefully at, to even supporting, good ideas when they come before the Senate. Certainly, I and other government senators look forward to encouraging the Australian Greens to support those good ideas that come from the government and that are brought to this place.

It is my pleasure also to rise this afternoon to speak on the Medical Research Future Fund Bill 2015 and related bill. This legislation will give effect to what I believe will come to be viewed as one of the government's landmark achievements: the establishment of a $20 billion Medical Research Future Fund. This represents a massive investment in Australia's medical research community, which has always punched well above its weight in global terms when you consider the size of our population.

This is an important initiative for a couple of reasons. The first of these relates to the future needs of our own nation. This is very much a piece of economic legislation. As the fourth Intergenerational report confirmed earlier this year, healthcare costs in Australia will continue growing significantly in the years to come as our population ages.

It is very much in our own interests to promote the type of research that will help to cure or, at least, lessen the impact of chronic illnesses that afflict members of our community. We know that Australians are going to be living longer. Our challenge is to make certain that they are living quality, healthy lives, as well as living longer ones.

By investing in medical research we can determine the effectiveness of a drug or form of treatment so that taxpayers' money is not being unnecessarily spent on things that do not work. But, more than that, this is the sort of investment that will allow Australia's medical research professionals to shine in a global context. Australian ingenuity has been a critical part of internationally significant developments in the field of medical research. For instance, think of Howard Florey, who carried out the first clinical trials of penicillin, in 1941, an act for which he later shared in the Nobel Prize for medicine. Today, we can take it for granted that our injuries can be bandaged and our wounds will heal, with little risk of infection. But that was not always the case of course. Death from wound infection was a significant issue prior to the mid-1940s.

Establishing this fund is about helping to unlock the potential of medical research in Australia. I am utterly confident that there is another Howard Florey out there and that the intelligence and work ethic that abounds in Australia's medical research community will play a big role in the eventual cure of diseases such as cancer, diabetes, HIV and the like.

That is why this legislation is important. It will be transformational, not just for the 23,000 Australians who work directly as medical research professionals but also for the medicines industry that supports those people and that itself employs nearly twice as many Australians.

The structure of the Medical Research Future Fund will also specifically address some of the concerns identified in the Strategic review of health and medical research, published in February 2013. That review, led by Mr Simon McKeon AO, clearly set out the need for Australia to have a more strategic model to get the best health results from its research efforts. The McKeon review identified a particular need to create greater linkage between healthcare providers and research organisations by 'fundamentally embedding research within healthcare delivery'.

The review set out a case for placing far greater emphasis on priority-driven research, to help bridge some of the gaps between research excellence and translation of research into applied technologies and practices. This requires additional investment in translating research findings into bedside applications. It requires more commercialisation and stronger partnerships between researchers and health practitioners, including hospitals and GPs.

Importantly, it will support investment across the research spectrum, from laboratory research to clinical trials, the commercialisation of new drugs or devices, the translation of new techniques or protocols into clinical practice and public health improvements.

All told, the Medical Research Future Fund will provide some $400 million for distribution over the next four years. And it is worth noting, I think, that this investment is additional to existing government support for direct medical research activities. However, the MRFF will be structured in such a way that it will meet specific purposes, consistent with the coalition government's overall investment approach in medical research and innovation.

Importantly, the MRFF will be governed by an especially rigorous set of accountability measures. This government believes that taxpayers' funds are a precious resource and that they should be allocated wisely, based on expert advice and strong governance arrangements.

The government underscored its commitment by making a series of amendments to the bill when it passed through the House of Representatives, all designed to strengthen accountability and transparency.

Under the terms of this bill, the Medical Research Future Fund will be managed by the Future Fund Board of Guardians. This will mean the fund is in the hands of a body that has a strong, proven track record when it comes to managing investment portfolios on behalf of the government or, more accurately, on behalf of the Australian taxpayer.

For instance, under the board of guardians' stewardship, the future fund has grown from approximately $64 billion, at its inception in 2006, to around $117 billion as of March this year, an annualised rate of return of around 8.2 per cent. I think it would take a very brave politician to dispute the success of the future fund. The board of guardians will be required to adhere to the same accountability frameworks that this government has in place for all Commonwealth bodies. This includes the publication of annual reports, audited financial statements and quarterly portfolio updates reporting on the fund's performance. Projects funded by the MRFF will be publicly disclosed online, consistent with the government's reporting frameworks for grants.

On the issue of parliamentary accountability, the Minister for Health will be required to prepare a report every two years, that will set out all funding provided by the government for medical research and innovation from the MRFF, and to explain how the funding is consistent with the strategic objectives set out by the fund's advisory board. That strategy is subject to a review every five years and will take account of national health policy needs, gaps in current investment and the timing needed to make certain the nation is obtaining best possible value from our spending on health, medical research and medical innovation.

In terms of ministerial oversight, the finance minister will be responsible for ensuring funds dispersed by the MRFF are done so in a manner that is consistent with the government's overall policy objectives. In this regard, the finance minister will work closely with both the Treasurer and the Minister for Health, who will oversee the flow of funds through the two accounts applicable to the MRFF—the COAG Reform Fund, and the Health Portfolio Special Account.

Of course, there is always a need to maintain independence in research activities, and nothing contained within the provisions of this bill will threaten the independence of research activities. The coalition government is committed to all investment activities undertaken by the Future Fund board, remaining independent of government. Ministers will not be involved in investment decisions. The Future Fund board will apply the same principles to the investments of the MRFF as it does to other government investment funds for which it is responsible, including the Future Fund. Of course, the Future Fund board will be required to actively manage risks and not take decisions that are likely to jeopardise the investment taxpayers are making in the MRFF. Once the MRFF is established, the board of guardians will advise the Minister for Finance each year of net earnings which can be withdrawn from the fund to invest in medical research and innovation projects. As per usual, long-established practice, the government will then decide, though the annual budget process, how best to use these funds to support priority areas.

The establishment of the Medical Research Future Fund is something of which this coalition government is very proud. Indeed, I suspect that every Australian will find themselves very proud of this particular initiative as time passes. By making this long-term commitment to ensuring excellence in medical research, we are taking an important step not only in the advance of medical science in this country but also in putting Australia's health system on a more sustainable footing. I am sure all of us in this Senate chamber look forward to the day when, as a result of investments made though this fund, an Australian researcher contributes to curing a dreaded disease, helping people both here and internationally lead longer, healthier and more productive lives.

It is estimated that for every dollar invested in medical research, the community derives a benefit worth $2.17. By establishing this fund, we are going a long way to locking in enormous health and research benefits for the generations of Australians both now and into the future. With those remarks, I commend the bill to the Senate.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak today on the Medical Research Future Fund Bill 2015. This bill finally gives effect to the government's intention to set up a Medical Research Future Fund, the MRFF. And I say 'finally' because this fund was supposed to be operational by the 1st of January, some eight months ago.

It is a sad reflection on the chaotic and dysfunctional two years we have had with this government that it has only now managed to introduce another one of its signature policies. Yet they have time to create knights and dames and to protect hate speech, and how many attempts have they had to introduce a GP tax? This government is so inept that it has no control over its own legislative timetable. This government is setting new lows in getting legislation through this place. A recent report by TheSydney Morning Herald demonstrated that this government has been the least effective government in almost five decades—less effective than even the McMahon government. No wonder it has taken so long for this bill to come before us today.

It is deeply concerning that, having spent more than one year talking about this fund, the government has not done the work needed to establish a fund that meets the principles the government itself outlined. Unfortunately, what the bill before us today fails to do is fulfil the government's promise when the fund was announced: 'fund earnings will be directed to medical research, primarily by boosting funding for the National Health and Medical Research Council, the NHMRC'. And it is here that it is important that we acknowledge just how well the NHMRC has served our nation.

The NHMRC has established internationally respected and transparent processes over more than 80 years, and Labor believes the existing mechanisms establish the best process through which the highest quality health and medical research can be funded through MRFF disbursements.

The bill before us today only references that the health minister 'could' ask for the NHMRC to manage distributions from the Medical Research Future Fund. It is no guarantee that the health minister will ask the NHMRC to manage distributions. And, given the government's track record of wanting to control such funding, there is the potential that the MRFF will become a slush fund for the health minister, just like Minister Brandis's arts slush fund.

Labor senators do not agree that decisions regarding the projects and programs awarded funding should sit wholly with the minister of the day. It is obvious that such a practice would be inconsistent with the way existing grants are awarded by the NHMRC, and inconsistent with international best practice in awarding grants to the highest quality projects based on a process of peer review.

Furthermore, the bill also provides that the finance minister can credit funds to the COAG Reform Fund for making payments to the states and territories for expenditure on medical research and medical innovation, including application and commercialisation activities that translate discoveries to new treatments and practice; and corporate Commonwealth entities outside the general government sector, such as the CSIRO. In addition, while the health minister can delegate responsibility for providing funding to institutions such as universities or medical research institutes, the health minister does not have to use this delegation.

Finally, the Minister for Finance can also direct credits to the MRFF Health Special Account for the purpose of making grants of financial assistance to medical research institutes, non-profit organisations, universities and corporations. Given the flexibility the government is allowing itself as to how funds can be allocated, it leaves open the question as to just what exactly this fund will support. Without any oversight from an independent advisory panel, without a peer review process, without consulting the NHMRC or even distributing funding at arm's length through the NHMRC, the government can, for all intents and purposes, direct credits from the MRFF to any pet project it wants. This all sounds very similar to concerns with Minister Brandis's arts funding changes. We know that the changes to arts funding are destroying the sector because of an ill-thought-out process which has vague guidelines and fails to provide appropriate criteria for assessment and basically becomes a private arts fund for the minister.

Back to the MRFF. In short, the government can send the funding to pretty much anywhere they choose with no independent advisory panel to oversee. It is very concerning—in fact, it is quite alarming to us on this side—that a large part of future medical research in this country can be at the sole discretion of the government to use for political purposes. It is a pretty ironic move from a government that is ideologically opposed to picking winners. The government is seeking to establish this fund without proper governance surrounding the way its disbursements will be made. So, how is this good for government?

Maybe those opposite can remind this place when good government is meant to begin again. I think it was six months ago that I heard that quote for the second time. 'Good governance starts today,' was, I think, the quote, but of course we are still waiting. Labor, of course, is the biggest supporter of health and medical research in this place. We demonstrated this when in government through a commitment of more than $3.5 billion in health and medical research funding. This included more than $700 million to build and upgrade health and medical research facilities across the country. Also, when in government, Labor commissioned the landmark McKeon Strategic Review of Health and Medical Research to provide a long-term vision for governments and the sector because Labor believes that medical research should be guided by a long-term vision, by guidance from experts, and be overseen by good governance. Those were our policies.

The McKeon review provides a 10-year roadmap as to how health and medical research can be supported for the benefit of all Australians. The review also made it clear that a levy, such as the Abbott government's GP tax, is not the ideal or preferred method for funding medical research in Australia and we agree. This is also why we oppose the government's freeze on Medicare rebates and call for it to be abandoned. The inevitable outcome of this freeze will be a GP tax worse than that proposed in last year's budget and a collapse in bulk-billing rates.

It is really saddening to see just how dysfunctional the government's mismanagement of the health portfolio has been. It is clear that this government does not believe in the principles of universal health care. They opposed universal health care when Whitlam introduced Medibank, which they overturned when Malcolm Fraser became Prime Minister. And this government does everything it can to strip funding away from health programs.

I would like to put on record some of the cuts that have been made to health to support this fund. They include more than half a billion dollars cut from public dental programs; billions of dollars cut from public hospital funding; almost $400 million cut from preventive health programs; hundreds of millions of dollars cut from the Health Flexible Funds, which support vital drug and alcohol rehabilitation services and important work undertaken by organisations like the Heart Foundation, the Cancer Council, the Consumer Health Forum, the Public Health Association and others; cuts to veterans' dental and allied health programs; cuts to the electronic health record; cuts to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, including the proposal that is still before the Senate to increase the cost of medicines by $5 for all general patients and 80 cents for concessional patients, as well as unfair changes to the PBS safety nets; cuts to a number of important health workforce programs; and, cuts to optometry programs; not to mention cuts to the Healthy Kids Check.

Now, let us just look at the impact of one of those issues. Having worked in early childhood education I am appalled at the axing of the Healthy Kids Check. This is a comprehensive health check for children aged three to five, which has been scrapped by the federal government to save about $144 million over four years, angering GPs and speech pathologists, as well as parents of young children. The Abbott government axed Medicare funding for the Healthy Kids Check, which is a consultation with a nurse or a GP to assess a child's health and development before they start school. The scheme includes assessments of a child's height and weight, hearing, eye sight, oral health, toilet habits and known or suspected allergies. Also, it helps parents to understand the risk of anaphylaxis and how to prevent it. In 2014, 154,000 children used the program. Medicare pays between $58 for a healthy kids check consultation with a nurse and $269 for an hour with a GP, depending on the child's needs. According to a study published in the Medical Journal of Australia in 2014, the check was detecting problems in about one in five children. The most common problems identified related to speech and language, followed by toilet habits, hearing, vision and behavioural issues.

Other organisations concerned include the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, which stated it was disappointed by the federal government's decision, which was made without consulting GPs—what a familiar record they have on that side about that. Also Speech Pathology Australia has stated that scrapping a check that facilitated early intervention services for children with problems before school made no sense at all. In fact, I would say, having previously spent 12 years as an early childhood educator, that it is likely to lead to worse educational outcomes for children who go to school with undetected health problems. Economically, you have to think about the costs involved and about how much money could be saved through early detection. Obviously there could be a cost saving through early detection.

None of this makes any sense—it does not make any sense at all to me but that is like so much of what this government does. These are important programs which should be supported and should not have been axed, but, unfortunately, this government just wants to cut health whenever they can.

The bills we are debating today—the Medical Research Future Fund Bill and the Medical Research Future Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill—were inquired into by the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. Labor senators made additional comments in the final report, and I would just like to mention some of these today. Labor senators commented:

Labor Senators support the establishment of the Medical Research Future Fund as an opportunity to expand Australia's health and medical research sector, especially in that it provides an opportunity to implement some of the recommendations of the McKeon Review …

Importantly:

Labor Senators however see the MRFF as a missed opportunity to pursue many of these recommendations due to the rushed and poorly developed proposal the Government has developed—

yet again—

giving no consideration to McKeon's recommendations to attract philanthropy and new funding sources, or indeed define the recommendations in the original Bill.

…   …   …

Labor Senators agree that the types of research that should be funded through MRFF disbursements is different from what the NHMRC has traditionally funded, especially when it comes to commercialisation and translational research. Labor Senators also recognise that through the NHMRC's existing committee structures this capacity is lacking which is why Labor Senators support the development of a the Australian Medical Research and Innovation Strategy and the Australian Medical Research and Innovation Priorities.

However:

Labor Senators do not support the transfer of existing funds within the Health and Hospitals Fund transferring to the MRFF—

The Health and Hospitals Fund was 'established for different purposes' and should not be raided to fund the MRFF. Labor will:

… seek to make a number of amendments to the Bills to establish a more robust assessment process. Labor's amendments establish the inclusion of a process of expert review to ensure that the highest quality research is rewarded, rather than—potentially politically motivated and influenced by the 'loudest voices'—decisions being made by the Minister of the day and subject to no independent oversight and with little transparency.

A Labor Government would seek to amend the NHMRC Act to ensure that, whilst the MRFF Special Account were to remain independent, the role of any MRFF advisory committee would be reflected in the NHMRC Council structure with the same sort of rigour applied to funding assessment as the NHMRC does through its existing grants streams.

This government could have done, and should have done, a whole lot better with these bills, especially given the delay in bringing them before the parliament today. I encourage senators to carefully consider Labor's amendments and to support Labor's amendments to the bills.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important legislation, the Medical Research Future Fund Bill 2015 and related bill. I would like to start by making some comments on this government's attitude to science since coming to power. I have listened to others who have participated in this debate and one could take from the comments from government members that this government is the biggest supporter of science and evidence based research informing policy decisions that the country has ever seen. But, if you go back and look at what has happened in terms of attacks on science, attacks on scientists and cuts to science and research across Australia since 2013, the record tells a much different story.

Certainly some very well documented analysis has been done around this. In my home town of Canberra we have seen the attacks that have been waged against CSIRO, with the loss of 600 jobs and over $111 million cut out of their budget. We have seen $75 million cut from the Australian Research Council. The CRCs have taken enormous cuts. The Institute of Marine Science has taken a cut. The Defence Science and Technology Organisation took a $120 million cut, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation took a cut of over $27 million, and Geoscience Australia took a cut of $36 million. Of course, that is in addition to some of the attacks that we have seen on the university sector from this government. So, whilst we certainly welcome the government's attention to providing a revenue stream for medical research, we need to see that in the context of the government's broader attitude to science, the role of scientists and how evidence based science is then translated into public policy decisions.

Having been a health minister for some eight years, I understand very much the important role that research takes in informing the health services that are delivered across our community. I recall very starkly a piece of research that was done into radiation therapy for people having treatment for breast cancer and how research actually informed and underpinned a change to the way radiation therapy was provided to those breast cancer patients. It changed the type of treatment they had and the duration of that treatment. That not only provided a better experience for the women undergoing that treatment but also cleared the waiting list for radiotherapy breast cancer patients in a very short time. That was because the radiotherapy was truncated to a much shorter, targeted program. So it had benefits not only for the patients but also for the efficiency of the health system. That is just one example. I am sure all of us in here could talk at length about all the other research that has gone into the contemporary delivery of health services.

The CSIRO, in their submission on this bill, said that Australia’s health and medical system is a major part of the economy. Expenditure on health in Australia was estimated to be $130.3 billion in 2010, dramatically up from $77.5 billion in 2000. This expenditure trajectory has continued to grow between five and eight per cent per year in the last couple of years. This is due partly to an aging population but is also due to the increasing burden of chronic disease that has been experienced across Australia. The CSIRO went on to say:

Australia’s health system must become more efficient to provide the health services that Australians expect and more innovative in using new technologies to improve health outcomes and dealing with emerging health issues and trends.

I think all of us standing here in support of this bill today would accept that analysis.

As previous Labor members have said, the Labor Party will support the establishment of this fund and the improvements that will be made through Labor's amendments. It is very important that we embed research as a part of the health system and not have it seen as a sweetener to some of the other cuts. Looking at the origin of this fund, it came as the centrepiece, essentially, of a savage budget that sought to make a whole range of cuts to families across Australia not only through the social welfare system but also through the health system. It was this budget where the Medical Research Future Fund emerged. That was, of course, the first budget that looked at a GP co-payment Mark I, and we have seen various versions of it over the past 18 months but now it is in place with the indexation freeze on Medicare rebates. So, yes, research needs to be part of any modern, efficient and innovative health system, but it cannot be used to play off one side against another—which was the role of this initiative when it emerged.

There is no doubt that we need to be investing in research. But can we invest in research whilst we are cutting hospital funding, dental funding, preventative health programs, the flexible fund, e-health—which will actually help to deliver an efficient and innovative health system—and the health workforce? There have been those attacks on primary care that have been underway over the past 18 months. You can feed your research arm as much as you like, but it will not help if you do not have a system that is actually able to deliver health services to the community.

In some of the submissions and comments on the bill, other stakeholders have identified the importance of having a consistent and stable funding source going into medical research. The submission from the Association of Australian Medical Research Institutes talks of needing this fund but ensuring that it is not hijacked by anybody—government or future governments—to pork-barrel nor hijacked by special interest groups or state governments wanting to backfill clinical care. These are all important points that need to be acknowledged. I think that has flowed through the inquiry, which has looked at the need for very strong governance arrangements to be in place and independence from the arms of executive government. This is certainly a position that the AMA endorses. Others have also cited concerns that the medical research community is already organising how it will get money from this fund. With the amount of money involved and the ability for the private sector, the community sector and other health providers to be interested, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this fund and calls on it will be heavily oversubscribed. Again, this points to the reason to have really strong governance in place and a very strong, independent process that is tried and tested and will withstand some of the pressures that will come from this amount of money being available for research.

The process for allocating grants under the proposal, as outlined, although I acknowledge that there have been some amendments made in the House, is a broad process in terms of the definitions, but there is also the concern I raised as to how decisions around the grants process are taken and managed. There is without doubt, and others have spoken of it, a legitimate role here for the NHMRC, which is a tried and tested model. Since its establishment in 1926, it has had a pre-eminent reputation as to how it manages and allocates the existing funds. It is hard to understand why it could not be used in a more permanent way.

Having the chair of the NHMRC sit on an advisory council probably acts as a way to say, 'You have addressed that concern,' but anyone with an understanding of strong governance processes and how the NHMRC works would see it for what it was: a tokenistic acknowledgement of the chair and the chair's role rather than having it come under the formal structures of the NHMRC.

There is no doubt it is business that the NHMRC understands: it focuses on current and future public health issues. It already has relationships well established across Australia for delivering health grants. When you look back at the mid-year economic update, or it might have been the budget, a whole range of committees and structures were abolished. In fact, it was part of a key agenda from the finance minister to cut red tape, abolish all these bodies, streamline processes and make making doing business easier. The government uses that argument and, at the same time, for this important body that is to be established, it would goes around the body that has the skills and expertise to actually administer this fund, albeit under a different way with the special purpose fund, and looks to establish another group which has an advisory role to the minister, but the minister, ultimately, takes the decisions. Then it goes to a cabinet process where, no doubt, it could be fiddled with again and perhaps put a whole lot of focus on wind farms, for example. The health impact of wind farms probably needs at least another 15 studies done into it, for argument's sake. So it could be said by government that this is the avenue that this money could go to instead of focusing on what it needs to be doing: allowing those with the expertise and skill in the area to go through their established grants allocation process, which is peer reviewed and the best model to deliver the research that aligns with Australia's current and future health needs.

I might leave my comments there. I look forward to listening to the debate and, hopefully, to seeing the Labor amendments supported, which will strengthen the governance and independence of this fund and make sure that it can be used for what it needs to be used for. The government needs to apply focus rather than a scattergun approach to research. Use the NHMRC—it is there. At the same time we must also continue to argue for the effective and full funding of the health system. There is absolutely no point in having a well-resourced research sector if you are savaging the delivery arm of the health system at the same time and making sure that it is not in a position to deal with the continually growing need for health care. That need is not just in hospitals. It is right through—in community health, primary care, palliative care and outpatient services—and the demand is growing every year. Technology is supporting that growth, but we have to make sure that we are not savaging one part of the system to sweeten up the other.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise very, very proudly to support the Medical Research Future Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2015. As a person who once had a kindred relationship with medical research I hope that this initiative of the Australian government will be strongly supported by everybody in this chamber, that we will see it pass through this chamber and that, in so doing, it will come into law. Senator Cameron was somewhat amused by my veterinary reference, but he may well know that 75 per cent of all infectious diseases in human beings have their origin in animals. Again I am very proud to say as an aside—and I hope that, in fact, the Future Fund might pick up on this issue—that Australia has moved and is moving to a One Health approach.

I want to commence by reflecting on the excellence of the history of medical research by Australians, because it sets the scene for this visionary move by the government, led by the Treasurer, in establishing this Future Fund. I commence in 1945 with Professor Baron Howard Walter Florey who, with his collaborators, won a Nobel prize for the discovery of penicillin and its curative effect in various infectious diseases. In 1960 Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet won his Nobel prize for acquired immunological tolerance. In the world of immunology one can only think of Professor Gustav Nossal, who has demonstrated an enormous capacity for Australians in the field of research—indeed, he is internationally acclaimed and has brought great credit to his country. I go on: the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1970 was awarded to Sir Bernard Katz, again in that particular area for transmission in nerve terminals and inactivation. In 1996, I am very proud to say, a fellow veterinarian, Professor Peter Charles Doherty, received his Nobel prize, relating to the specificity of cell-mediated immune deficiencies.

We go forward to 2005 when—again I am very proud to say this as a fellow Western Australian—Professors Barry Marshall and Robin Warren received the Nobel prize for their work in determining and confirming the fact that the bacterium Heliobacter pylori is responsible for gastritis and peptic ulcers. In fact, so committed was Professor Marshall to proving this theory that he ingested a serum of the bacterium Heliobacter pylori, contracted severe acute gastritis and peptic ulcers and then treated them. Indeed, that led to the Nobel prize they won. Then we go even further to 2009 with Professor Elizabeth Blackburn and her collaborators, Professor Carol Greider and Jack Szostak, for their work with chromosomal anatomy and functionality.

Australia has a very proud history of medical research, and the Future Fund builds on that proud tradition. We have always punched well above our weight, and the establishment of the Future Fund is going to allow further opportunity in this area.

We know that with an ageing population that is much more active into older life—indeed, younger people are far more physically active recreationally—there are increasing demands on health. I remember it being said to me four or five years ago that, the way the Queensland public health budget was going, by 2025—if no changes were made—the entire state revenue would be required just in the health sector. But the Future Fund, though not on its own, will significantly contribute to the containment of costs.

What are we going to see in this particular circumstance? We are going to see Australia continue to advance world-leading medical research projects to attract and retain first-class researchers and to deliver improved health and medical outcomes—not just for all Australians but for all those within our region.

Going back to the question of One Health, I think of the Hendra virus which has killed veterinarians and a couple of racehorse trainers and horses, and is very closely related to the Nipah virus, which has killed children in Malaysia, Bangladesh and India. So it will not just be to the benefit for Australians—it will be a benefit for all, especially those within our region.

The second point to be made is that we often hear about the 'brain drain' of our top young researchers leaving Australia to go and work elsewhere because they do not have the opportunities; the Future Fund is going to give us the opportunity to attract the best young brains to come into this country because they will want to work with it. The fund will support the sustainability of our health system well into the future. All Australians will benefit from ongoing investments in medical research and medical innovation through the fund, both directly through improved health and indirectly through improved productivity and economic growth. This brings to my mind CSL—the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, as they were once known, a company that is now international, with its world-leading researchers and commercial developers of vaccines in both the human space and the animal and animal production space.

This gives me the opportunity to say that the future fund is going to generate a whole stack of new business opportunities, and we know that one of the new growth centres announced by the Minister for Industry and Science, Mr Macfarlane, is directly related to medical innovations and research and commercial opportunities. This is all coming together so well in this particular space.

I again compliment the executive on the way in which they have established the concept of the fund which will allow the capital to be invested by the future fund board of guardians—and what an outstanding group they have been and continue to be. I saw some figures on the weekend on the investment success of the future fund against all other superannuation funds in this country. If my figures are correct, the future fund has been performing at an average of in excess of 8.8 per cent return on funds invested; whereas the average of all superannuation funds has been only a shade over five per cent. So what better hands in which to place the fund than those of an already proven organisation, with a set of circumstances and a model already in place so that we do not need to generate a new wave of bureaucracy to have responsibility for the capital component of the new future fund.

We know that there will be a special account which will allow for earnings to be distributed from the future fund to the health portfolio special account, to corporate Commonwealth entities or to the COAG reform process to address medical research and innovation priorities.

What are we going to see in this instance? We are going to see the build-up of capital into the future fund. It will eventually get to some $20 billion, and that $20 billion of capital will be protected. Only the interest accruing from that capital will eventually flow into medical research. So why is it important for us in this place today to be debating this issue and, I hope, to unanimously give agreement to the future fund? It is because it was due to start on 1 August 2015, and it will, indeed, subject to the passage of the legislation through this place, commence soon after the bill is passed. Therefore, I say to my colleagues on all sides that delays in the commencement of the future fund will impact the level of investment earnings of the fund and will reduce the amount of funding available for distribution to medical research and innovations into next year. So it is critically important.

How will the earnings be determined? As I have said, the fund is a capital-preserved fund. The net earnings of the fund will be distributed annually to support ongoing health and medical research. The net earnings from the fund will serve as a secure revenue stream well into the future. I know that the Assistant Minister for Health, Senator Nash, and, of course, the Minister for Health, Ms Ley, will be reassured that we will know well into the future that we can program research that is so desperately needed and that we can actually schedule it. It has been disappointing to hear some of the flippant comments by others as to where they believe some of that research money may go.

How will the funding be distributed? Who will make recommendations to the minister in terms of the distribution of that funding? The funding will be distributed to address Australian medical research and innovation priorities and will be determined—it is critically important that people understand this—by the independent advisory board based on the Australian medical research and innovation strategy, and funding will be taken from the fund only following a decision of government through the usual budget processes. Payments other than those made through the COAG reform fund or as appropriated to Commonwealth entities will be distributed as grants—not as loans but as grants—which will be, for example, through the National Health and Medical Research Council. The NHMRC will have a critical role in this advisory component as, indeed, it should from the commencement.

Contributions to the fund will come initially from some $1 billion in uncommitted funds in the Health and Hospitals Fund—and it is a good thing the finance minister has turned up, because he has got accountability to this place and to the parliament more generally in terms of that disbursement. We will see $1 billion in uncommitted funds in the existing Health and Hospitals Fund, and the estimated value of savings from the health portfolio for 2014, as announced by Minister Ley, will allow the fund to get to its capital level of some $20 billion by, it is hoped, 2019-20. This year's budget, which has been so well accepted and received by the Australian community, contained a range of health savings measures, so not all of the capital from health savings expected by 2019-20 will be required to achieve that $20 billion target, but more of it will be invested as we go forward into the future. What we need to know is: how do the crediting arrangements from this fund differ from those of nation-building funds? It is of some significance, as Senator Macdonald would know, that the crediting arrangements for the fund and the nation-building funds are similar, but there are differences in terms of the initial credits to the fund itself. The total amount of the initial credits for the nation-building funds were specified in legislation.

Debate interrupted.