House debates

Wednesday, 17 August 2011

Bills

National Health Reform Amendment (National Health Performance Authority) Bill 2011; Consideration in Detail

10:57 am

Photo of Robert OakeshottRobert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I will be brief and will just clarify any perception of confusion. I accept the minister's argument that this is the movement from the Commonwealth to an independent authority and not necessarily an ongoing running battle between the Commonwealth and the states, but I would also put on the record, Minister, that I know independence and this is not independence. That is the concern specifically about the amendments. I refer you to the policy principles of COAG at proposed section 66A, where it is COAG itself that is giving written policy principles to the performance authority about the performance of the performance authority's functions. COAG, if I read it correctly, will be a gathering of health ministers, state and federal, and therefore it remains a part of the political process. Likewise, with the similar issues around amendment (26) in regard to who decides the work plan of the performance authority, it is by agreement, as I understand it and read it, between the state and federal health ministers. That is arguably much more a political decision than an independent one.

So I fully back the concept of an independent performance authority with unfettered powers alongside an audit office, an ombudsman and inspectors-general of defence or taxation. If we are serious about establishing an independent body, it needs to be unfettered and to be genuinely removed from the political process. These 29 amendments are the political process using its claws, and particularly the states, to work against what is a very good concept as part of the health reform agenda. So no confusion, just disappointment. Maybe it is a reality of negotiations in a federated system that once again the Commonwealth takes a bullet as a consequence of having to negotiate with states. But I, as the local member representing my people in the federal parliament, in what I consider the 'common wealth' parliament, should not accept this incursion from the states once again. In 2008, it was finding ways to get around state command and control which was one of the fundamental reasons we were doing what we were doing.

Comments

No comments