Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While I support the bill, I am putting forward an amendment to improve the management and scrutiny of board appointments to the advisory board. As the bill stands, the health minister will have the ability to consider an appoint members to the advisory board.

As I already highlighted in my speech on the second reading, I am uncomfortable with the approach and feel the appointment of the board members needs additional scrutiny and transparency, and as a result I am putting forward an amendment to this bill to require any and all appointments to the board to be ratified by both houses of parliament.

This will ensure that the appointments are considered in a manner which is reasonable, bipartisan and transparent. I understand that my amendment may introduce a level of administration not currently included in the bill, but I feel the people of Australia deserve increased scrutiny in the management and use of taxpayer funds. This amendment will introduce an important level of accountability and scrutiny not currently present within the bill.

The board appointments are not small appointments. The appointment of board members will be for a period of up to five years. Board members will be responsible for managing the allocation of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds to the research sector, and of course these board members will also be paid. It is for this reason I feel there needs to be an additional level of scrutiny and consideration in the management of these board appointments. The community needs confidence that the best people are being appointed to this board. Currently, as the bill stands, the minister has the sole discretion around board appointments. Presenting appointments to the parliament will require the Minister for Health to detail the name of the person the minister is seeking to appoint and the field in which the person has the relevant experience or knowledge.

As the only independent senator for Queensland, I want to ensure the people of Queensland and, more broadly, Australia have the confidence that the government is making decisions in the best interest of all Australians and that it is using taxpayers' funds in the most appropriate manner. My amendment will deliver this level of accountability and confidence to the people of Australia.

I sincerely hope that the Senate will support my amendment and I commend my amendment to the Senate.

The CHAIRMAN: I take it, Senator Lazarus, that is your formal moving of amendment (1) on sheet 7745?

I move amendment (1) on sheet 7745:

(1) Clause 32G, page 32 (after line 29), at the end of the clause, add:

(5) An appointment under subsection (1) is of no affect until:

  (a) the Health Minister has caused to be laid before each House of the Parliament a statement:

     (i) recommending the appointment of the person; and

     (ii) outlining the field mentioned in subsection (2) in which the person has experience or knowledge; and

(b) both Houses of the Parliament by resolution have approved the making of the appointment.

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

I can indicate that Labor will be supporting Senator Lazarus's amendment. There has been a lot of conversation in the Senate inquiry and also in the chamber that these people will be very reputable. That is a given and we all accept that, but it is our view that the amendment moved by Senator Lazarus will give the bipartisan support that I think the board does require so that the population has faith in the board into the future, so Labor will be supporting the amendment.

Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Greens understand the motivation behind the amendment from Senator Lazarus but I will indicate that we will not be supporting this amendment. We appreciate that safety checks for a significant amount of money, $400 million between now and 2019, is good practice. But we are comforted by the additions made during the consideration of this bill to include Professor Kelso, the CEO of the National Health and Medical Research Council, and her peers on the advisory board. We are satisfied that that will ensure good practice and governance from the existing NHMRC to inform the way that that MRFF goes about its business.

There is no precedent for signing off on government enterprise appointments by parliament in this way. The skills mix required by the legislation would largely preclude the sort of irresponsible and ideological appointments that would make this amendment necessary in our view. We are also concerned that it would delay the process of appointment and, indeed, it may well deter worthy candidates if they are of the view—not being political people—that they may then be unjustly, in a very elaborate process, overly scrutinised and become politicised. A scientist being approved by one or both sides houses of parliament might well be intimidating to very worthy and meritorious appointees.

The other question, I suppose, is: to what extent is the parliament well placed to vet the appointments? How would the process work? Indeed that risks politicising the appointments even more. We have actually looked at other government enterprises, and there are many of them, but there are no examples of where board members are signed off by one or both houses of parliament.

The guidelines on board composition also address concerns about stacking the board. The bill, as amended, provides for an advisory board of up to eight members including the CEO of the National Health and Medical Research Council as I already indicated. Collectively the membership of the advisory board must possess an appropriate balance of experience or knowledge in the fields of medical research, policy relating to health systems, management of health services, medical innovation, financing and investment, and commercialisation of research and innovation. So although the Australian Greens have taken seriously this amendment that is being proposed by Senator Lazarus, the Australian Greens will not be supporting the amendment today.

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

The government does not support this amendment for the reasons very eloquently outlined by Senator Wright.

Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do want to put on the record that I am happy to go with the voices but there were other crossbench senators that were keen on voting for this amendment.

Question negatived.

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

Can I indicate on behalf of the Labor Party that the amendments on the second page do not now need to be dealt with.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.