Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aged Care, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The purpose of the National Health and Medical Research Council Amendment Bill 2006 is to amend the National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992 to introduce new governance arrangements and to clarify accountability and reporting functions for the NHMRC. These new arrangements will establish the NHMRC as a statutory agency. The CEO will be responsible for the primary functions of the agency and will report to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Previously, the council was responsible for both governance matters and expert scientific advice. The new division of responsibility will allow the council to focus on expert scientific advice while the CEO will have day-to-day responsibility for the operation of the agency.

The proposed changes also streamline the reporting lines of the CEO and the council. The NHMRC previously had three concurrent lines of reporting: the Minister for Health and Ageing, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing and the council itself. This bill provides for the CEO to report directly to the minister while keeping the secretary informed.

Labor will support this bill, but we do have some concerns about it and about the willingness of the Howard government to invest in the incredibly important research efforts that are funded by the NHMRC. Our concerns go initially to the membership of the council. Firstly, we oppose the removal of the requirement that membership of the council must include—and this is what occurred previously—an eminent scientist who has knowledge of public health research and medical research issues. Secondly, we oppose the removal of the requirement that membership should include a person with expertise in the trade union movement, a person with expertise in the needs of users of social welfare services and a person with expertise in environmental issues. Given the advice that this expertise is currently found in members who also have expertise in other areas, we recommend that the requirement for expertise remain and that it be made clear in the legislation that multiple categories of expertise may be found in individuals on the council.

Going to those people who were previously required to be represented on the council, we recognise that an eminent scientist with expertise in or knowledge of public health research and medical research issues would most probably appear on the council in its new structure. But a person with expertise in the trade union movement is not necessarily going to be included in the new structure of the council. That reflects the view of this government that people who represent workers in Australia are not terribly important. That is the way this government thinks, and it is reflected in the bill.

We also express concern that the question of equity may not be addressed if someone with expertise in the needs of users of social welfare services is not included. Our concern about the lack of need for a person with expertise in environmental issues, once again, underscores this government’s respect for the environment. Whilst we support the inclusion of someone on the council who has expertise in ethics, particularly in medical research, no argument during the committee hearing was advanced in support of the necessity for this new category of persons with specific expertise in ethics relating to research involving humans. Clarification is required as to whether the chair of the Australian Health Ethics Committee is a member of the new council as is the case at present.

Our concern also goes to the appointment of the AHEC chair. We oppose the removal of the need for the federal minister to consult with the state and territory health ministers before appointing the chair of AHEC in favour of the requirement of consulting appropriately. During the committee hearing, there was some discussion about what ‘appropriately’ means, and I am afraid Labor senators felt uncomfortable that that was not properly clarified. The bill does not contain a definition of what that might mean nor any certainty that it is being done. In our view, this undermines the principle that the NHMRC should be at arm’s length from government and be a body that has broad acceptability and response to national interests rather than those of any particular health minister at the time. Appointments such as this should be made on merit, and there should be a formal process in place to ensure that this is the case.

Our third point of concern is the issue of disclosure of interests. We note that the minister is not required to be advised if a member of the council has disclosed an interest. We consider it the responsibility of the minister to know if a member or members disclose an interest and regard this as an accountability measure not an administrative task as noted in the schedule prepared by the department for this bill. Fourthly, we note the advice of the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee concerning the altering reporting arrangements and agree with their recommendation that the bill should be amended to enable expert advice to be provided directly to the minister.

Finally, we acknowledge the inappropriateness of defining particular research priorities for the NHMRC but indicate that we would be concerned if the proposed restructure had a result of diminishing the NHMRC’s capacity to strategically respond to the serious problems of Indigenous health, while we recognise that significant progress has been made in recent times through the involvement of members with Indigenous expertise working across the current committee structure.

The amendments enacted in this bill address the governance issues that have been identified in four major reviews over the last few years. It is interesting to note that all of the reports have been around for some time, so clearly the minister has been in no hurry to make these changes, which are claimed in the second reading speech to:

... strengthen the NHMRC’s independence, promote clear lines of responsibility for governance and financial accountability and allow the Council to focus on issues relating to medical and biological research and advice.

Both the second reading speech and the minister’s media release from September last year highlight the need for the NHMRC to build better links with business to improve investment in research and to explore industry joint ventures. While Labor is truly supportive of the need for more industry support for R&D and more collaboration, any attempt to replace federal research funds with private funds should be strongly resisted.

At the same time that this bill was introduced, the government also introduced the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2006 that takes a very heavy handed approach to the ARC abolishing the board and the ARC’s ability to conduct inquiries into national research issues and make decisions about the effective use of research funds. There is concern that this will lead to even more examples than those already known of instances where the Minister for Education, Science and Training has objected to funding for specific projects. Labor is strongly supportive of the ARC’s independence and would be deeply concerned about any similar attempt with respect to the NHMRC.

The NHMRC is Australia’s primary funder of biomedical R&D in Australia. In 2005-06, $447 million for health and medical research was provided through the NHMRC. A recent Access Economics report clearly found that this is one of best investments our nation can make to the wellbeing of our people. The report said:

... returns from health R&D are so extraordinarily high that the payoff from any strategic portfolio of investments is enormous.

                 …         …         …

Health R&D must be seen as an investment in wellness with exceptional returns.

The report also said:

Historically, annual rates of return to Australian health R&D were up to $5 for every $1 spent on R&D.

This can be as high as $8 for cardiovascular R&D and $6 for respiratory R&D. The Access Economics report found that, despite the additional funding flowing as a consequence of the Wills review, continued boosts to investment in health R&D relative to GDP are still warranted given Australia’s poor ranking relative to other OECD countries.

As Australia ages the dependency ratio increases and heath spending naturally will rise. Breakthroughs in R&D are seen as the best way to address the challenge inherent in the cost and impact of chronic disease. Funding in response to the Health and Medical Research Strategic Review, the Wills review, led to the doubling of the NHMRC funding, which was $613.7 million over five years. That five-year period is now complete. I acknowledge that significant funding was allocated in last night’s budget that will pick up the end of that period.

The investment review of health and medical research released by the government in December 2004, the Grant review, recommended that the government continue to invest and build on the Wills funding by increasing federal government investment in health and medical research to $1.8 billion by 2008-09, bringing Australia up to the OECD average level of investment of 0.2 per cent of GDP. I have not had a chance to look at what last night’s funding allocation does in respect of that recommendation. Maybe the minister would like to inform the chamber of whether or not that target has been met. A key finding of the Grant report was that government investment through the Wills funding package had already started to deliver results and that further increases in funding for health and medical research will yield similarly considerable health benefits and economic dividends.

Australian researchers are finding life increasingly difficult. A December 2005 paper in the Medical Journal of Australia highlighted the extent of researcher dissatisfaction with funding and the inadequacy of infrastructure support. It is not surprising that so many of our best scientists are attracted overseas and, unfortunately, stay there. It is truly hoped that last night’s allocation of funds will reduce, if not reverse, the brain drain that is occurring in Australia.

I would like to take the opportunity to recognise that the states have developed their own innovation initiatives and are reaping considerable rewards. Initiatives like my state of Queensland’s Smart State, BioMelbourne, Bio Innovation South Australia and BioFirst New South Wales reflect the recognised importance and economic realities of catching the biotech wave.

While Labor support the proposals in this bill to strengthen the independence of the NHMRC, to clarify reporting lines and to improve appointment processes, we can only wonder why such amendments, seen as good governance and most of them recommended two or more years ago, have taken so long to come forward. It is clear that, despite the wealth of reports around the value of the work of the NHMRC and the ongoing need to support Australia’s health and medical research, this is an issue that up until the passage of this legislation has slipped off the Howard government’s radar screen. Perhaps, given the government’s move to grab control of the Australian Research Council and exercise political control over the peer review processes, we should be grateful for this. But the failure to investment in our research capabilities is yet another example of the Howard government’s squandering of our national resources and failure to build our skills base.

The Australian community supports health and medical research efforts. Research Australia’s annual health and medical research public opinion polls in 2003 and 2004 showed that most Australians wanted to see increased government and industry investment and are prepared to contribute to that investment themselves. In fact, 47 per cent of Australians said that they would rather see surplus government funds invested in health and medical research rather than in tax cuts.

Securing a long-term, enduring, sustainable economic future for Australia does require a long-term view for building on the valuable investment to date. This will be achieved only by a continued focus and leadership by government in partnership with researchers, industry and the community. Government commitment to the recommendations of the Grant report would be a good first step towards showing this leadership. If the additional needed investments in biomedical research come only as a consequence of the sale of Medibank Private, that is simply not good enough, and it demonstrates only too clearly the cynicism of the Howard government, its lack of commitment to biomedical research and its failure to make real investments in Australia’s future.

In May 2004, the Prime Minister announced that the Australian government would establish quality and accessibility frameworks for publicly funded research. The stated aim of this initiative was to develop the basis for improved assessment of the quality and impact of publicly funded research. This report was released by the Minister for Education, Science and Training in March this year, and an advisory group is now working on implementation measures.

While Labor absolutely supports measures to ensure public accountability for how research funds are spent, the crucial question is whether the research quality framework is the most appropriate and cost-effective mechanism to achieve this. If we look at the success of similar schemes overseas, it is not an encouraging story. The UK Research Assessment Exercise was introduced in 1986, but the UK is now set to abandon this process and move to a metrics based system, just like the one Australia is set to jettison through the RQF. The UK RAE is expensive. In 1996 it was estimated to cost between £27 million and £37 million and is widely believed to have downgraded teaching, compromised clinical academic medicine and led to a significant decline in clinical academic staffing levels. It sidetracks researchers and scientists from the core business of research with a dead weight of micromanagement at all levels. A similar system introduced into New Zealand in 2003 has led to reports that many universities have spent more on the exercise than they will gain in funding increases. Australian universities say they need $40 million to begin the implementation of the RQF.

Maybe in his second reading speech the minister will be able to tell us what the state of that is. As I said at the outset, the Labor Party will support the passage of this legislation. We hope that the government recognises the concerns that we have expressed both in this contribution today and also in the additional comments to the report of the inquiry that has been tabled. I take this opportunity to thank those witnesses who appeared at the inquiry and also those people who made submissions to the inquiry process.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whilst the Democrats broadly support the restructure of the NHMRC provided for in the National Health and Medical Research Council Amendment Bill, we are concerned about the lack of time that was available for receiving submissions. We are concerned about the lack of advice that was available from the outgoing council on the bill and what we expect to be diminished accountability that might result from these changes.

The central purpose of the bill is said to be to introduce new arrangements to clarify accountability and reporting functions for the NHMRC, giving the NHMRC financial and operational autonomy while maintaining its independent statutory responsibility for expert health and medical research advice to the government. These changes follow reviews of the NHMRC over the last three years. However, in some respects, the Democrats argue that these changes will have the opposite effect, or at least could have the opposite effect. The NHMRC CEO currently reports to the minister, to the secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing and to the National Health and Medical Research Council itself. This was of concern to the Vice-Chancellors Committee, which, although supportive of streamlining of reporting, said there was potential for the expert advice provided by the council to the CEO to be ignored or not considered when making recommendations to the minister, particularly concerning funding decisions. The minister, of course, appoints the CEO and should he appoint a CEO who shares the minister’s own conservative views on some issues such as sexual and reproductive health and embryonic stem cell research, for instance, this may well result in a barrier being established to advancing what might be described as more universal and more scientific views of the world and views more representative of the general population. I will be moving amendments to allow for that expert advice from the council to be provided directly to the minister.

In streamlining and reducing the size of the NHMRC, the bill removes the requirement that membership of the council must include an eminent scientist who has knowledge of public health research and medical research issues, a person with expertise in the trade union movement, a person with expertise in the needs of users of social welfare services and a person with expertise in environmental issues. Given the advice that we received during the inquiry into this bill that this expertise is currently found in members who also have expertise in other areas, we cannot see any argument for dropping those requirements. We recommend that those areas of expertise remain and that the legislation be made clear that multiple categories of expertise may be found in individuals on the council. Again, we see no sound argument for removing those expertise requirements, and I will be moving amendments to the bill to require them to be part of the mix.

Whilst we support the specific inclusion of expertise in ethics, particularly in medical research, no argument was advanced by the department in support of the necessity for the new category of persons with specific expertise in ethics relating to research involving humans. The chair of the Australian ethics committee will also be a member of the new council, which is the case at the present time. This means that there could be two members appointed to the NHMRC for their expertise in ethics. With a council which is much reduced in size, that would not appear to be warranted and might suggest that the balance is not appropriate.

We oppose the removal of the need for the federal health minister to consult with state and territory health ministers before appointing the chair of AHEC in favour of the requirement of consulting appropriately. The bill does not contain any definition of what ‘appropriately’ might mean, nor was the department able to provide that to the committee during the hearing. There is no certainty that appropriate consultation has taken effect, if we do not know who might be consulted in such an appropriate consultation and we are not going to know whether any views at all have been taken on board. That undermines the principle that the NHMRC should be at arm’s length from government and a body that has broad acceptability and responds to the national interest, rather than those of the particular federal health minister in question. The Democrats again argue that appointments such as this should be made on merit and that there should be a formal process in place to ensure that this is the case, and I will be moving standard amendments to that effect. Today will be the 32nd time that we have put up our appointments on merit amendments.

The minister is not required to be advised if a member of the council has disclosed an interest. We again consider it the responsibility of the minister to know if a member or members disclose an interest, and we regard that as an accountability measure, not an administrative task, which is said to be the case in the schedule that was prepared by the department for the bill. We agree that it is inappropriate to define particular research priorities for the NHMRC but, like Labor, we would be concerned if the proposed restructure had the effect of diminishing the NHMRC’s capacity to strategically respond to the serious problems of Indigenous health—an area in which significant progress has been made in recent times through the involvement of members with Indigenous expertise who, as I understand it, are working across the current committee structure.

In submissions to the committee, it was also said that there was an expectation or a hope that there would be an increase in research in the medical field for the NHMRC. We note that in the budget last night a substantial increase in research spending was announced. This is very welcome and we do hope that some of that research funding, without suggesting a particular direction, will find its way to research into this important field.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise and support this National Health and Medical Research Council Amendment Bill 2006, particularly to support the context in which the bill has been presented and is being advanced today through the Senate. That context, as previous speakers have indicated, is that there is to be a very substantial increase for medical and health research investment in Australia, as announced in the budget which was delivered last night by Treasurer Peter Costello. I note that Senator Allison welcomed this particular announcement last night and I thank her for that. I note that Senator McLucas also welcomed it, but went on to comment that the Australian government had failed to make a real investment in Australian research. I find that comment very difficult to understand in light of the evident commitment made last night by the government to this area.

As senators will undoubtedly be aware, there was a package of $905 million announced last night for Australian health and medical research, one of the most significant boosts in this area that I can recall, perhaps the largest. That is made up of a number of important components, most particularly a boost of $500 million to the National Health and Medical Research Council to continue its important work. That is on top of $200 million in the budget before last, so there has been a boost of $700 million for the NHMRC in the last three years alone, above and beyond its ongoing funding. On top of that we have $170 million for new research fellowships, which is long-term funding for between 50 and 65 Australians to undertake five-year research fellowships in important areas of national priority.

Senators will also recall the announcement just a couple of weeks ago by the Minister for Health and Ageing, Tony Abbott, of a new national adult stem cell research centre in Queensland, which I am sure you will welcome, Madam Acting Deputy President Moore. In this budget there is $22 million provided for research in that area. The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research receives an additional $50 million to contribute to its work, and there are particular grants made to a range of medical research facilities, designed to improve their capacity to deliver quality research projects in their particular states and territories. There is, for example, $10 million for the Macfarlane Burnet Institute for Medical Research and Public Health, $10 million for the Heart Research Institute, $15 million for the Westmead Millennium Institute, $14 million for the Garvan Institute and the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute and $37 million for the Howard Florey Institute. On top of that, I am delighted to see $50 million contributed by the federal government to the John Curtin School of Medical Research here in the national capital, which will greatly assist it to be able to deliver on its major expansion currently under way. I encourage senators to go and see that development if they have a chance during Senate sittings.

In that context, it is very hard to understand why anyone would seriously make the comment, as Senator McLucas did a moment ago, that the Australian government has shown a failure to make real investments in Australian research. The commitment that the government has to Australian research is demonstrated by the amendment bill before the Senate right now. The National Health and Medical Research Council Amendment Bill 2006 provides the underpinning for a sound mechanism to deliver quality research. It provides for clearer, better and more contemporary governance arrangements in the NHMRC and it clarifies the function of accountability and reporting to the Australian people which the council has. In doing that, the bill does not impact on the NHMRC’s fundamental role, its mission, nor does it affect the funding basis for the body. In fact, the bill strengthens the independence of the NHMRC and it should be and is welcomed by the key stakeholders in this sector. The bill makes the NHMRC a statutory authority—it has previously been a body corporate—and subject to the provisions of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. Those arrangements that apply to other government agencies will now apply to the NHMRC.

The decisions the government has made in respect of this bill are a reflection of key reviews of this area, particularly the The virtuous cycle report by the Australian National Audit Office in 2004 and the Uhrig review in 2003. I note that the changes are broadly supported by all those who made submissions to the inquiry, particularly the Australian Society for Medical Research and the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee. In that context, I found some of the additional comments provided by senators from the Labor Party and the Australian Democrats a little bit puzzling. Senator Allison just referred to a concern expressed in the additional comments about the lack of time available for receiving submissions in this inquiry. I am puzzled about this because I understand that there was no particular dissent or dispute about the time frame for this bill to be referred to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. There was no challenge to that time frame. It was provided for that there would be a referral at the end of March with report back to the Senate at the beginning of May. My recollection is that that is quite a long period of time for a legislation committee to consider a bill. I cannot recall, in fact, having a bill inquiry with a longer time frame for reporting, except the RU486 bill inquiry, which notoriously took place over the recent summer.

So there was quite a long time in comparison with usual references to legislation committees, certainly the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. As such, that was a strange comment. But it is perhaps made more understandable by the fact that a number of the additional comments that were made by the Labor and Democrat senators were not in fact made by any of the people who made submissions to the inquiry. For example, the senators concerned say:

We oppose the removal of the requirement that membership of Council must include:

an eminent scientist who has knowledge of public health research and medical research issues

a person with expertise in the trade union movement

a person with expertise in the needs of users of social welfare services

a person with expertise in environmental issues

None of the people making submissions to the inquiry raised those issues. Nobody raised those issues with the inquiry. The closest we got was a comment from the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee that expressed a little bit of concern about reducing the size of the governing council and said:

… the AVCC is concerned that unless attention is placed on the role and function of the Research Committee, the capacity for high quality recommendations to be made concerning funding of research proposals may be put at risk.

But, with respect, that does not really touch on any of issues which have been raised by the additional comments. For that matter, I do not recall much discussion in the course of the hearings about those issues, but perhaps members of the committee will be able to enlighten us about that.

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It looks like Senator Webber is going to contribute to that question. I very much look forward to that. It is very hard to understand why the National Health and Medical Research Council needs to have a person with expertise in the trade union movement sitting on it to contribute to its work. This is not an exercise in bashing unions; it is just a reflection on what role trade unions would have in a body of that kind. I cannot think of a less appropriate setting for trade union participation. I suppose it is possible that medical researchers and so on might be unionised to some extent, but there are plenty of them on the council, as researchers, already. They do not necessarily need representation by another body on the council. All of the state and territory governments are represented, I understand, through their chief medical officers. Presumably, they have a role to play there on behalf of those governments.

I find the suggestion that that particular position should be retained a rather strange one, particularly given that nobody, not one submitter, made that suggestion to the committee. We had over a fortnight for submissions to be lodged with the committee and no trade union took advantage of the opportunity to do that. So, as I said, I find the comments strange.

I also note that the senators concerned oppose the removal of the need for the federal health minister to consult with state and territory health ministers before appointing the chair of AHEC in favour of the requirement of consulting appropriately. This was discussed in the committee, and the Department of Health and Ageing made it clear that the federal minister for health does need to consult with state and territory health ministers through the Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council—and of course there is that representation on the NHMRC of the chief health officers from each state and territory—and that the work of the council should proceed on the basis of ‘a large degree of cooperation and consensus’ so that those sorts of issues or problems are avoided. I think that very neatly deals with that issue.

I accept that it is the right of senators on these inquiries to form views which are based on personal experience rather than on anything that witnesses say to them, but I draw the line at being told that somehow either this bill or the announcements in the last 24 hours exhibit a failure by the Australian government to make a real investment in Australian research. Nothing could be further from the truth. Last night the federal government demonstrated an absolutely sterling commitment to medical research in this country. The benefits of that spending will be felt by generations of Australians to come. It was an extraordinarily generous commitment, and it is a pity that we cannot all acknowledge it for what it is—a major investment in the future health of Australians.

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whilst I do not want to delay the chamber unduly on this issue, I cannot help but respond in the first instance to some of the matters Senator Humphries has raised before going on to my planned contribution to this debate on the National Health and Medical Research Council Amendment Bill. I came to the Senate inquiry a bit late in the process, so I appreciate Senator Humphries’s outline of the timetable. I will make two brief comments in response.

When considering at the inquiry the membership of the council and the removal of specific people with areas of expertise, whilst I will not comment on the submissions the committee received, I know that we did spend some time questioning and debating the need to remove these designated positions. Those appearing before the committee tried to assure us that those areas would be covered anyway. I would say that perhaps those of us that signed off on these additional comments were underwhelmed by the guarantees that we were given. We did not feel that those assurances would match and meet our concerns.

I would also like to place on the record the concern that members of the government seem to have about people that know anything about the trade union movement serving on anything. When you see this in light of the piece of legislation that has just gone through this place—the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment Bill 2006—this seems to be a systematic approach by this government to remove from any board anyone who has ever been a member of a trade union.

There is a trade union that covers researchers and academics—the National Tertiary Education Union. They cover university academics. They would not be seen, I am sure, by Senator Sterle or anyone else as being the most radical and hardline union in our country, but they do bring to bear a certain perspective on the conditions that academics work under that I think is appropriate for people to consider when they are looking at funding models and priorities for research. There is no point in just saying, ‘We’re going to give you a whole lot of money,’ if we do not make sure that that funding ensures that we meet the occupational health and safety standards and the requirements of those conducting the research. So I think there is a legitimate role for people with that kind of background. However, obviously those opposite feel a little uncomfortable about having people who know anything about the union movement on any board or committee these days.

To return to what I was originally going to say: one of the matters that every member of the committee that was at the hearing is in furious agreement on is our support for the role of the NHMRC. It is one of the defining institutions in Australian public life; it is often a world leader and it is something that we should all be very proud of. I too would like to congratulate the government for increasing the funding in areas of research. The funding that was announced last night is a genuinely significant contribution and a very good thing. But, for the people conducting this long-term research, certainty must go hand in hand with funding—certainty of time lines and certainty of process. Probably the main concern I have with this legislation is the fact that we are now removing the legislative requirement for when funding will be announced. Our key scientists and researchers will not have that guaranteed time line by which they know they will get a decision on the future of their projects and their work. That is now in the hands of those working at the NHMRC.

Whilst they sought to give us some assurances about how we do not really need it legislated because they will meet the time line anyway—which I do not really think is a very good reason for wanting to get rid of a time line—I remain to be convinced. When we probed why it needed to go, we were told that it put them all under undue pressure to make decisions and that, in fact, the only time in our history that we failed to meet the time line was when there was a flood. I am sure everyone in this building would accept that there are mitigating circumstances with natural disasters.

I think the removal of that prescribed time line brings a degree of uncertainty. I think it is a bit sad when we get to that point, particularly if you look at it hand in hand with increased funding and increased knowledge and support of the organisation from within this building. So I want to place on record my concerns, particularly given the lead time that a lot of these complex research projects have. If they are going to devote that much of their technical knowledge, expertise and life to making some of these miraculous discoveries, the least we can do as parliamentarians is to give them a guaranteed time line so that they know whether they will continue with their desired research project.

The only other thing I want to briefly place on record is another concern I have with the removal of the prescribed time line. I do not in anyway suggest that the current minister would do this, but it seems to me that, when you decide to remove a prescribed time line for making funding decisions, things can very easily get caught up in political processes and become politicised. When you remove a prescribed legislative time line for decisions and announcements on grant applications and put that hand in hand with increased funding for organisations, the cynics in our community—and that seems to be a growing part of our population—then see how delays in making decisions and announcements can get caught up with things like, say, elections, where governments may want to be seen as innovative and to be fostering developments in medical research and the sciences.

I wanted to take the time in this chamber to place those two concerns on record. We have removed the certainty that our researchers had and, whilst I accept the guarantees we were given at the hearing, I will feel a lot more confident when the certainty is in the legislation. I am underwhelmed by the reasons we were given for removing it. One of the other things that certainty gives us is a politically neutral and, therefore, fair playing field for those trying to pursue research.

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I would like to open my remarks by thanking senators for their support of the National Health and Medical Research Council Amendment Bill 2006sometimes grudgingly, sometimes qualified; nonetheless we always welcome support. In particular I would like to acknowledge the very valuable contribution made by the members of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee for their consideration and careful scrutiny of this bill. But I have to say that I am disappointed by some of the views expressed by the Australian Democrats and the Australian Labor Party in their additional comments. I would like to take the opportunity to briefly address these comments.

Before turning to the issues raised by the ALP and the Australian Democrats, I would like to congratulate the government for the really huge boost in funding for the NHMRC. Last night, as we all know, in a very popular, successful and responsible budget, the Hon. Peter Costello announced an additional $905 million for Australian health and medical research. This is a major new investment in our future health and one that I believe we should all be very proud of. The benefits of research investment are undisputed. The changes outlined in this bill ensure that the NHMRC is well positioned to ensure that Australia harvests the benefit of this investment.

Australia, I am pleased to say, currently stands as the world leader in health and medical research. On a per capita basis, our research output is twice the OECD average. Access Economics has estimated that since 1960 the consumer benefits arising from Australia’s investment in health and medical research have been in excess of $5 trillion—and I think it is correct to say that that is $5,000 billion. I see Labor senators are nodding, so I clearly got that right. This comprises over $2.9 trillion in longevity gains of eight years, plus an estimated $2.5 trillion in gains in the quality of life and avoided costs. They are very interesting figures. I can see that they have gripped the Labor senators on the other side of the chamber.

It is not surprising that industry has also benefited from investment in health and medical research. Since 1992 it is estimated that commercialisation of health and medical research has created over 350 companies, translating into approximately 3,000 to 4,000 new knowledge-based jobs. The NHMRC has performed a pivotal role in supporting such research and fostering talented researchers in these fields. This bill and the recent current budget commitments ensure that this will continue.

The legislation introduces new governance arrangements to the National Health and Medical Research Council which will ensure that the council can focus on providing the best possible advice. These new arrangements address governance concerns identified in a number of recent reviews, primarily the investment review of health and medical research, or the so-called Grant review, the ANAO review of NHMRC’s governance arrangements and the review of the corporate governance of statutory authorities and office holders, otherwise very well known as the Uhrig review.

The existing legislative framework under which the NHMRC currently operates divides financial responsibility and operational accountability. The proposed new governance arrangements address this issue by clearly aligning accountability and responsibility. Under the new legislation, the NHMRC will remain within the Health and Ageing portfolio, with reporting and accountability frameworks that clearly separate the NHMRC’s roles and functions from those of the department. The proposed governance arrangements establish the NHMRC’s chief executive officer as directly accountable to the Minister for Health and Ageing, while keeping the secretary of the department informed on a ‘no surprises’ basis. The bill’s provisions strengthen the NHMRC’s independence, provide clear lines of responsibility for governance and financial accountability, and allow the council to focus on issues relating to health, medical research and advice.

I now turn to the size and membership of the council—an issue raised by Senator McLucas. I will make some observations about Senator McLucas’s comments. Senator Allison also suggested an amendment in relation to the size of the council. As has been noted by a number of reviews, the current membership of the council is unwieldy and not conducive to strong governance. Under the current legislation, the size of the council is 29 members, which are drawn from 17 prescribed bodies following an eight-month consultation process.

One of the purposes of this bill is to streamline the council membership while ensuring that the most appropriately qualified people can be appointed to the council based on the priorities for a particular triennium. Rather than prescribing the expertise for each and every position, as was the case in the past, the new legislation provides that certain people must be appointed, such as the chief medical officer from each state and territory. It then provides that at least six, but no more than 11, members must be selected with expertise in one of the listed areas or with other appropriate expertise. This means that if, in a particular triennium, there is a particular need for a person with expertise in environmental issues, for example, then such a person could be selected. This is a sensible change that recognises that priorities of the council change over time and that appropriately qualified and experienced people must be able to be appointed to the council. In this way we ensure that the council can respond to emerging issues and can provide expert advice on issues as they arise.

The reduction in the number of people on the council in no way reduces the breadth and depth of the expertise of this eminent body. Council members themselves have acknowledged problems with the current size of the council, and it may be considered testimony to the proposed legislation that no concerns have been forwarded by any council member regarding the proposed new council structure. Senator McLucas will be interested in that. The good senator has also expressed concerns regarding the disclosure of interest provisions. The legislation in no way waters down any disclosure of interest requirements. In fact, the legislation has been strengthened in that respect.

Previously, the legislation required council members to disclose their interests within one month of being appointed. There was no express requirement for interest to be disclosed prior to appointment. Despite this, it was always a matter of practice that members disclosed their interests prior to an appointment. The new legislation expressly provides—Senator McLucas will be delighted to know—that, before starting to hold office, members of the council and of both principal committees and working groups must give the CEO a written statement of any interest the person has that may relate to any activity of the council or committee. Interests must continue to be disclosed on an ongoing basis. This means that more than 500 people—including up to 24 council members, approximately 75 principal committee members and approximately 400 working group members—will be providing the CEO with declarations of interest. It is not appropriate that the minister be responsible for overseeing all of these disclosures. This responsibility has therefore been vested in the CEO.

On the specific issue of the appointment of council members, the CEO will be advising the minister on all relevant matters in relation to all possible candidates, including any possible conflicts of interest. It has always been the case in the past, in the absence of any legislation requiring disclosures to the minister prior to appointment, and this will continue to be the situation in the future. This will also be expressly covered in the agreement between the CEO and the minister.

I will now turn to issues regarding Indigenous matters. In their additional comments, the Australian Democrats and the Australian Labor Party have indicated that they would be concerned if the proposed restructure of the NHMRC were to have the result of diminishing the council’s capacity to respond to serious problems in Indigenous health. The mere suggestion that this might occur is quite scandalous. As my colleagues in this chamber are well aware, there is absolutely nothing in this legislation which even remotely suggests that the capacity of the council to respond to Indigenous issues will be diminished. The NHMRC’s capacity will not be diminished in any respect. Some senators appear to have misunderstood one of the main functions of the amendments, which is precisely to ensure that the NHMRC as a whole is best placed to respond to important issues, including, but not limited to, Indigenous health. The whole point of the changes is to clarify the governance arrangements to ensure that the council can focus on the provision of expert advice and that the CEO can focus on the smooth, transparent and effective management of the NHMRC as a whole.

Let me now turn to the appointment of the CEO. On 27 April this year, the Minister for Health and Ageing announced the appointment of Professor Warwick Anderson AM as the new Chief Executive Officer of the NHMRC. Professor Anderson brings a wealth of experience to this position. Indeed, since 1991, Professor Anderson has contributed extensively to the work of the NHMRC, including chairing the research committee for two triennia.

As Head of the School of Biomedical Sciences at the Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences and Head of the Department of Physiology at Monash University, Professor Anderson’s responsibilities have included management, administration and financial accountability issues. With the responsibilities and accountabilities assigned to the CEO under these new governance arrangements, it is fortunate that the government has been able to secure a person that brings such a wealth of high-level management and scientific expertise to the position as Professor Anderson brings.

I would also like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the minister, to thank Mr Bill Lawrence for acting as the NHMRC’s CEO throughout this transitional period. I am aware, as advised by the minister, that Mr Lawrence’s sensible and calm leadership through this transition has been appreciated by all, stakeholders and staff alike, and his commendable performance has not gone unrecognised. The minister wishes Mr Lawrence every success in his future endeavours.

Finally, it gives me great pleasure and it is an honour to commend this bill to the Senate on behalf of the minister. The bill provides the NHMRC with a sound governance platform on which to build upon its successes to date and to lead Australia’s future strategic direction in health and medical research.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.