Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I move amendment (1) circulated in my name.

(1) Clause 78, page 63 (line 22) to page 64 (line 12), omit the clause, substitute:

78 Review of operation of Act

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be undertaken of:

(a) the operation of this Act during the 5 year period beginning at the commencement of the Act; and

(b) the operation of this Act during each subsequent 5 year period.

(2) The review must be conducted by an expert panel comprised of 3 members appointed by the Minister.

(3) Each member of the expert panel must have experience in at least one of the following:

(a) public health;

(b) clinical practice;

(c) economics;

(d) human rights;

(e) health data and statistics;

(f) emergency management;

(g) communications.

(4) A member of the expert panel must not be any of the following:

(a) a current employee of the Commonwealth public service;

(b) a current member of the Advisory Council;

(c) a current or former member of the Commonwealth Parliament;

(d) a current or former employee or executive of a registered political party.

Timing of review and Minister to be given report

(5) The expert panel must be appointed by the Minister within 6 months after the end of the 5 year period to which the report relates.

(6) The review must be completed and the report submitted to the Minister by the expert panel within 12 months of the panel's appointment.

Minister to table copy of report of review and response to review

(7) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

(8) The Minister must cause the government's response to the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within three months of the report being tabled.

I moved this amendment circulated in my name because it's important. This amendment would establish best practice for the statutory review of the CDC act, improving the independence and integrity of the review process. It would strengthen public trust in the CDC and its operation.

As it currently stands, the statutory review requirement in this legislation is not strong enough. In fact, I'd say it's weak. It makes feeble stipulations about who is able to undertake the review, limited to a requirement that they cannot be employed by the CDC. Well, obviously, that seems like a pretty basic requirement! Neither does it guarantee the independence, impartiality or relevant expertise of the reviewer. I have moved an amendment to fix this so that the government and all Australians can be confident that the CDC is operating effectively, as it's intended and as I know the minister intends it to be.

I am heartened that the minister has indicated that he will look seriously at recommendations coming through the Senate inquiry. I hope this is one of the recommendations that he will see and take seriously, because it is a good faith amendment.

Impartiality, transparency and rigorous review are all things that we fundamentally expect in our healthcare advice, and we should expect no less from the CDC. We're seeing right now in the United States what happens when health advice becomes politicised. This is a clear warning to Australia—in fact, it's a warning of biblical proportions—not to let the same thing happen here.

As I said to the minister earlier, we don't legislate for the here and now alone. We don't legislate for the good faith minister that we have with us here and now. I say that genuinely. We have to legislate to prevent what's happening in the United States from ever happening here. By rejecting amendments that safeguard the CDC's independence, the government truly risks undermining trust in this vital institution from the very start. Legislate right and legislate now to make sure that we protect against any risk.

My amendment would require the five-year statutory review of the CDC act to be independent and undertaken by an expert panel. Members would have relevant and related experience to comprehensively understand the CDC's operations and importance. To ensure impartiality, they must not be on the CDC advisory council. They must not be current employees of the Commonwealth public service, current or former member of the Commonwealth parliament, or current or former employees or executives of a registered political party. The reasons for that should be obvious to any thinking member of parliament. They are obvious to the public.

We must protect the CDC from vested political interests, now and into the future. Politics has absolutely no place in best practice health advice, and my amendment ensures we keep it at arm's length. I've already given you the example of what's happening in the United States. This is not a theoretical concept. This amendment will improve the timeliness and transparency of the review. The report must be completed within 12 months of the panel's appointment, tabled in parliament within 15 sitting days, and the minister's response must be tabled within three months. This is a sensible, non-controversial amendment, and it does not burden the government, the CDC or the review process.

I also support the amendments of my colleagues the member for Kooyong, around scope and remit, and the member for Mackellar, to enhance the governance of the CDC—and together these suite of amendments come forward with good faith and with, I must say, decades and decades of commitment to health in this country. The CDC will support public health prevention and response for pandemics, disease outbreaks, preventive health and the health effects of climate change. This is a major responsibility. We must be assured the agency operates as intended and delivers the highest quality of health advice.

Australians deserve a CDC that is independent, transparent and trusted. Safeguarding the independence of the review process gives us confidence and gives the people confidence. We must get it right from the very start. I call on the minister and the government more broadly to consider these amendments seriously with the intent to which they are put and safeguard the precious CDC that we're legislating for.

See this speech in context