Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (5), circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 5, page 8 (lines 14 to 22), omit the definition of public health matters, substitute:

public health matters includes the following:

(a) health emergency management;

(b) health security;

(c) health protection;

(d) health promotion;

(e) preventative health;

(f) disease control;

(g) environmental health;

(h) the health effects of climate change;

(i) occupational exposures;

(k) injury prevention.

(2) Clause 11, page 16 (after line 25), after subparagraph (11)(h)(viii), insert:

(viiia) bodies whose objects include mitigation of, and adaption to, climate change;

(3) Clause 78, page 63 (line 24), omit "5 year period", substitute "3 year period".

(4) Clause 78, page 64 (line 3), omit "5 year".

(5) Page 64 (after line 12), after clause 78, insert:

78A Biennial statement on health effects of climate change

(1) Within 6 months after the end of every second financial year, commencing two years after the commencement of this Act, the Minister must prepare a statement of activity that relates to the health effects of climate change including:

(a) data and information collection, coordination, analysis, and dissemination relevant to the impacts on Australians' health of climate change; and

(b) public education and awareness raising; and

(c) planning and preparation for future health threats; and

(d) development of health guidelines and standards; and

(e) reports or materials published; and

(f) emerging threats; and

(g) reviews and learnings from past experience; and

(h) the effectiveness of the Commonwealth's policies in reducing risks.

(2) A statement under subsection (1) is to be known as a Biennial Statement on Health Effects of Climate Change in Australia.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of this biennial statement to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 5 sitting days of that House after the completion of the preparation of the statement.

78B Biennial statement on pandemic preparedness

(1) Within 6 months after the end of every second financial year, commencing in the year after the commencement of this Act, the Minister must prepare a statement of activity that relates to pandemic preparedness including:

(a) data and information collection, coordination, analysis and dissemination relevant to Australia's pandemic preparedness; and

(b) public education and awareness raising; and

(c) planning and preparation for future health threats; and

(d) development of health guidelines and standards; and

(e) reports or materials published; and

(f) emerging threats; and

(g) reviews and learnings from past experience; and

(h) the effectiveness of the Commonwealth's policies in reducing risks.

(2) A statement under subsection (1) is to be known as a Biennial Statement on Pandemic Preparedness.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of this biennial statement to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 5 sitting days of that House after the completion of the preparation of the statement.

Amendment (1) refers to the definition of 'public health matters'. Each of the topics listed in the bill relates to forms of public health and harm, and it's clear and obvious that they should be the natural responsibilities falling within the scope of a well-defined and fulsome CDC. This amendment captures the additional harm of occupational exposures and the public health responsibility for injury prevention related to these. I note that the addition of public health exposures and occupational exposures has been supported by the Public Health Association of Australia and the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand, and even by the Australian Council of Trade Unions—a body with which the government may be familiar.

Amendment (2) refers to the functions of the director-general, which sets out the centre's advisory role and the intersections with and coordination of bodies with health responsibilities within the CDC. The health effects of climate change are captured under the existing definition of 'public health matters' in this bill, but what is not captured is the importance of the Centre for Disease Control in providing integrated advice in a matter of national and global consequence. These amendments aim to position the CDC as an authoritative and valuable contributor to the understanding of and policy advice on climate change impacts on public health, particularly in the absence of any other national body which currently has this focus.

Amendments (3) and (4) will ensure that the first statutory review of the act will be undertaken within the first three years, and every five years thereafter. The centre is an essential public health authority; we all agree on that. Scrutiny of the establishment and its functions at the earliest opportunity will ensure that it meets public expectations from early in its course.

Amendment (5) will introduce mandatory reporting on matters of national importance, the health effects of climate change, and pandemic preparedness. Its purpose is to inform. That should be a core responsibility of the Centre for Disease Control. It will ensure accountability and transparency of the centre's activities and the whole-of-government preparedness for public health emergencies. Even this weekend, we've seen that they are on the immediate agenda, with elephant seals on Heard and McDonald islands being affected by bird flu. The next pandemic could be months away—or even less time that that. We need to have reporting requirements which are focused on attention to and resourcing of priority areas. Amendment (5) will provide transparency around government approaches to matters of national importance. It will encourage the culture of science, expertise and public trust that we need, and it will safeguard the core purposes of the Centre for Disease Control. The reports will relate to two specific areas of public health which are of national importance.

The report on pandemic preparedness will ensure we have whole-of-government preparedness for public health emergencies by bringing together information on activities across a range of agencies with functional responsibilities such as research; by making sure we have the appropriate medical stockpile that we need for pandemic preparedness; and by ensuring we have appropriate facilities for vaccine production and for emergency management. The process of reporting could identify potential gaps and will provide assurance to stakeholders and the general public of our nation's capacity to respond appropriately to health emergencies.

The report on the health impacts of climate change will ensure we have an appropriate level of resourcing over time and that the body of knowledge around climate change impacts is developed to meet the challenges of the coming decades. A high level of visibility and understanding of this area of public health will better inform climate adaptation and mitigation strategies across all agencies and all levels of government.

A mandatory reporting regime will strengthen the centre's core purpose. It will safeguard the centre's role as a trusted source of scientific knowledge serving the national interest. And so I commend these amendments to the House.

Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Kooyong for her long engagement on this question, a debate to which she brings many, many years of experience. I genuinely thank her for that.

As members know, including members on the crossbench who have taken a deep interest in the bill's progress and the debate leading into its introduction, the Senate committee of inquiry into this bill reported on Friday. We're going through that report. There's significant overlap between a number of amendments the members of the crossbench are proposing in the bill today and the Senate inquiry materially. I have a lot of sympathy for a number of measures contained in some of these amendments. I want to address a couple of them, though.

We don't support what I understand to be the impact of the member for Kooyong's amendment in relation to occupational health and safety. As I'm sure the member knows, the interim CDC has already assumed responsibility for things like dust diseases and the establishment of a registry in this area. We do see a role for the CDC in managing the public health impacts of poor occupational health and safety, but the government's view is that Safe Work Australia is still the proper place for the development of policy and standards and for enforcement in relation to occupational health. But, certainly, we are keen for my portfolio through the CDC to do things like manage the emerging public health impacts associated, for example, with silicosis and other areas of public health.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the remarks the member has made in relation to the climate health impacts. I've been an advocate in this area for many years, firstly as a spokesperson for the Labor Party on climate but since shifting to the health portfolio as well. That will be a piece of work for the CDC.

We don't support the detail of the amendment the member for Kooyong has proposed today, although I suspect there will be an ongoing debate about that and a number of other matters the member has raised as this bill progresses, as I hope it will, to the other place. I want to ensure members on the crossbench, as we continue to engage around the passage of this bill through the other place, that I am keen to continue an open dialogue with members of the crossbench in this chamber as the government reaches a final position in relation to some of the amendments in the Senate.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the House is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Kooyong be agreed to.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to 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.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the House is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Indi be agreed to.

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (5), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 10, page 15 (lines 9 to 11), omit subclause (3), substitute:

(3) The Minister must not appoint a person as the Director-General unless:

(a) the Minister first appoints a selection panel consisting of at least 3 persons for the purposes of assessing whether a candidate is suitable for appointment; and

(b) the independent selection panel has advertised the appointment, conducted interviews and shortlisted at least 3 candidates for appointment on the basis of the following criteria:

(i) appropriate expertise;

(ii) qualifications or experience in public health matters;

(iii) integrity;

(iv) opportunities for promoting diversity in the public sector; and

(c) the independent selection panel has provided to the Minister a comparative assessment of the 3 shortlisted candidates against the criteria in paragraph (b), and a certification statement indicating that they are eligible for appointment; and

(d) that person has been shortlisted for the appointment by an independent panel in accordance with paragraph (b).

(2) Clause 11, page 16 (after line 19), after subparagraph (h)(v), insert:

(va) bodies whose objects include the prevention and management of occupational disease and injuries;

(3) Clause 11, page 17 (after line 3), after paragraph (j), insert:

(ja) promoting public health research through:

(i) maintaining close relationships with key public health research entities; and

(ii) providing advice to government grant making entities on research priorities for public health matters;

(jb) building and enhancing expertise in relevant public health expertise and workforce capacity;

(4) Clause 29, page 28 (lines 11 and 12), omit the clause, substitute:

29 Chair of the Advisory Council

The Minister must appoint an Advisory Council member other than the Director-General to be the Chair of the Advisory Council.

(5) Clause 30, page 28 (line 25) to page 29 (line 10), omit subclause (4), substitute:

Process for appointment

(4) The Minister must not appoint a person as a member to the Advisory Council unless:

(a) the Minister first appoints a selection panel consisting of at least 3 persons for the purposes of assessing whether a candidate is suitable for appointment; and

(b) the independent selection panel has advertised the appointment, conducted interviews and shortlisted at least 3 candidates for appointment on the basis of the following criteria:

(i) appropriate expertise, qualifications or experience in at least one of the following:

(A) public health matters;

(B) clinical practice;

(C) economics;

(D) human rights;

(E) data and statistics relating to public health matters;

(F) emergency management;

(G) communications;

(H) any other field that the Minister considers appropriate;

(ii) integrity;

(iii) opportunities for promoting diversity in the public sector; and

(c) the independent selection panel has provided to the Minister a comparative assessment of the 3 shortlisted candidates against the criteria in paragraph (b), and a certification statement indicating that they are eligible for appointment; and

(d) that person has been shortlisted for the appointment by an independent panel in accordance with paragraph (b).

The amendments I'm introducing today are made in good faith and will do four things. Firstly, they'll create an independent selection process for the appointment of the director-general and the Advisory Council. Secondly, they stipulate that the chair of the Advisory Council be a member of the council rather than the director-general. Thirdly, they expand the functions of the director-general to include the promotion of research and advice to government on workforce capability. Lastly, they ensure consultation occurs with preventive health bodies.

A central objective of the Australian Centre for Disease Control is to guide independent, evidence based public health decision-making that builds and maintains public trust. While the creation of the Australian CDC as a statutory Commonwealth entity with clear lines of accountability delivers on this objective, public trust will absolutely hinge on the CDC's independence from political interference now and into the future. The politicisation of the US CDC, under the influence of health secretary Robert F Kennedy, has shown how misinformation and political pressure can undermine scientific leadership. Australia must proactively design safeguards to prevent similar vulnerabilities. My amendment to this bill would do this, so it's somewhat alarming that the way this bill is currently drafted means that the minister of the day will retain discretion over the appointment of the director-general. Again I say: let's establish this really important institution in a way that safeguards its integrity.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.

The House of Representatives transcript was published up to 13.30 . The remainder of the transcript will be published progressively as it is completed.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Mascarenhas ) took the chair at 10:29.