|
representatives vote 2014-06-03#1
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:21:44
|
Title
Description
The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2014-06-03.114.8 motion] to read the bill for a second time. This means that the majority agreed with the main idea of the the bill and that the House can now discuss it in more detail.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here].
) Alternatively, the House may vote immediately on whether to read the bill for a third time, which would mean the bill would be passed in the House and would now go to the Senate for their consideration.(In the case of this bill, the House did decide to read the bill for a third time without further consideration of the bill in more detail (see [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2014-06-03.116.1 here]). This decision was made without division and so is not recorded here on Public Whip (see our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#division FAQ Section] for more information about divisions and why they are not always called).
)''Background to the bill''The bill was introduced to repeal the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/anphaa2010428/ Australian National Preventive Health Agency Act 2010] in order to abolish the [http://www.anpha.gov.au/internet/anpha/publishing.nsf/Content/about-us Australian National Preventive Health Agency].(For more information, including the bill's explanatory memorandum, see [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr5203%22 here].
) This Agency was established on 1 January 2011 "to provide national capacity to drive preventive health policy and programs".(Read more about the Agency on its [http://www.anpha.gov.au/internet/anpha/publishing.nsf/Content/about-us website]. More information on its abolition is available on Radio National's [http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/put-the-cupcake-down3a-cuts-to-preventative-health-funding/5453168 Life Matters].)- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2014-06-03.114.8) to read the bill for a second time. This means that the majority agreed with the main idea of the the bill and that the House can now discuss it in more detail.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law [here](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html). )
- Alternatively, the House may vote immediately on whether to read the bill for a third time, which would mean the bill would be passed in the House and would now go to the Senate for their consideration.(In the case of this bill, the House did decide to read the bill for a third time without further consideration of the bill in more detail (see [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2014-06-03.116.1)). This decision was made without division and so is not recorded here on Public Whip (see our [FAQ Section](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#division) for more information about divisions and why they are not always called). )
- _Background to the bill_
- The bill was introduced to repeal the [Australian National Preventive Health Agency Act 2010](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/anphaa2010428/) in order to abolish the [Australian National Preventive Health Agency](http://www.anpha.gov.au/internet/anpha/publishing.nsf/Content/about-us).(For more information, including the bill's explanatory memorandum, see [here](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr5203%22). ) This Agency was established on 1 January 2011 "to provide national capacity to drive preventive health policy and programs".(Read more about the Agency on its [website](http://www.anpha.gov.au/internet/anpha/publishing.nsf/Content/about-us). More information on its abolition is available on Radio National's [Life Matters](http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/put-the-cupcake-down3a-cuts-to-preventative-health-funding/5453168).)
|
|
representatives vote 2014-06-03#1
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:16:59
|
Title
Description
- The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2014-06-03.114.8 motion] to read the bill for a second time. This means that the majority agreed with the main idea of the the bill and that the House can now discuss it in more detail.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here].
)
The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2014-06-03.114.8 motion] to read the bill for a second time. This means that the majority agreed with the main idea of the the bill and that the House can now discuss it in more detail.[1] Alternatively, the House may vote immediately on whether to read the bill for a third time, which would mean the bill would be passed in the House and would now go to the Senate for their consideration.[2]- Alternatively, the House may vote immediately on whether to read the bill for a third time, which would mean the bill would be passed in the House and would now go to the Senate for their consideration.(In the case of this bill, the House did decide to read the bill for a third time without further consideration of the bill in more detail (see [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2014-06-03.116.1 here]). This decision was made without division and so is not recorded here on Public Whip (see our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#division FAQ Section] for more information about divisions and why they are not always called).
)
- ''Background to the bill''
The bill was introduced to repeal the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/anphaa2010428/ Australian National Preventive Health Agency Act 2010] in order to abolish the [http://www.anpha.gov.au/internet/anpha/publishing.nsf/Content/about-us Australian National Preventive Health Agency].[3] This Agency was established on 1 January 2011 "to provide national capacity to drive preventive health policy and programs".[4]- The bill was introduced to repeal the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/anphaa2010428/ Australian National Preventive Health Agency Act 2010] in order to abolish the [http://www.anpha.gov.au/internet/anpha/publishing.nsf/Content/about-us Australian National Preventive Health Agency].(For more information, including the bill's explanatory memorandum, see [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr5203%22 here].
) This Agency was established on 1 January 2011 "to provide national capacity to drive preventive health policy and programs".(Read more about the Agency on its [http://www.anpha.gov.au/internet/anpha/publishing.nsf/Content/about-us website]. More information on its abolition is available on Radio National's [http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/put-the-cupcake-down3a-cuts-to-preventative-health-funding/5453168 Life Matters].)
''References''* [1] Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here].* [2] In the case of this bill, the House did decide to read the bill for a third time without further consideration of the bill in more detail (see [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2014-06-03.116.1 here]). This decision was made without division and so is not recorded here on Public Whip (see our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#division FAQ Section] for more information about divisions and why they are not always called).* [3] For more information, including the bill's explanatory memorandum, see [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr5203%22 here].* [4] Read more about the Agency on its [http://www.anpha.gov.au/internet/anpha/publishing.nsf/Content/about-us website]. More information on its abolition is available on Radio National's [http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/put-the-cupcake-down3a-cuts-to-preventative-health-funding/5453168 Life Matters].
|
|
representatives vote 2014-06-03#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-06-05 08:11:47
|
Title
Bills — Australian National Preventive Health Agency (Abolition) Bill 2014; Second Reading- Australian National Preventive Health Agency (Abolition) Bill 2014 - Second Reading - Read a second time
Description
<p class="speaker">Tim Watts</p><p>The bill before the House repeals the Australian National Preventive Health Agency Act 2011 and abolishes the Australian National Preventive Health Agency, a body established by my predecessor in the electorate of Gellibrand, Nicola Roxon, during her very successful period as the federal Minister for Health and Ageing. It is a testament to the short-term, self-destructive approach taken by those opposite since they came to government. Chronic disease is one of the biggest and fastest-growing cost burdens on the Australian healthcare system. There was ample evidence of the need to respond to this chronic illness crisis at the time of the establishment of the ANPHA. As my predecessor told this House in the second reading speech for the bill establishing this agency, Australia has serious preventative health issues in relation to alcohol:</p><p class="italic">… our overall per capita consumption of alcohol is high by world standards.</p><p class="italic">One in four Australians drink at a level that puts them at risk of short-term harm at least once a month.</p><p class="italic">Around 10 per cent of Australians drink at levels that put them at risk of long-term harm.</p><p>A similar story can be seen in Australia's obesity statistics. I quote again from the second reading speech at the introduction of this agency:</p><p class="italic">… we are now one of the most obese nations in the world.</p><p class="italic">The National Preventative Health Taskforce stated that if obesity trends are left unchecked the life expectancy for Australian children alive today will fall by two years by the time they are just 20.</p><p>The burden of chronic disease is particularly clear in my electorate. At present, men living in Melbourne's west are not healthy. There are areas in my electorate where over 50 per cent of men are overweight or obese and where one in three men smoke. The consequence is very high rates of diabetes, heart disease, lung disease, renal diseases and bowel and digestive cancers. As a result, in my electorate we have one of the lowest average life expectancies for men in urban Victoria.</p><p>During the lives of people afflicted with these illnesses, we also have a healthcare system struggling under the burden of providing ongoing and costly treatment of these chronic diseases. The cost-effective way to respond to these diseases is through investment in prevention, not in treatment after the fact. You cannot cut your way to a more cost-effective healthcare system in a developed economy, certainly not through cutting preventative health measures, at least. This is why there is such a significant need for the Australian National Preventive Health Agency.</p><p>The ANPHA was recommended by both the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission and the national Preventative Health Taskforce. The ANPHA was established under the National Partnership Agreement on Preventive Health, a COAG initiative announced in November 2008. Through this national partnership, the previous Labor government agreed with the states to commit to a wide range of initiatives targeting the lifestyle risk factors of chronic disease, including    interventions in preschools, schools, workplaces and communities to support everyday behavioural changes focusing on diet, physical inactivity, smoking and excessive alcohol consumption, including binge drinking. The ANPHA's role in this process was to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of these interventions—to gather evidence about the effectiveness of various preventative health interventions by collecting data and collating statistics and then, on the basis of this evidence, to administer a preventative health research fund to inform future interventions.</p><p>The ANPHA provided leadership in centrally coordinating preventative health interventions across the health sector—across non-government providers and the health promotion and primary care sectors. Making this kind of coordinating role work requires long-term institutional leadership. It is not the kind of role that can be effectively performed within a Public Service juggling many other priorities, many of which are more pressing and immediate in nature but not more important in the longer term. A stand-alone body dedicated to maintaining a long-term focus on the importance of evidence based preventative health interventions is crucial to the long-term cost-effectiveness of our healthcare system. We need a body that will coordinate and maintain a focus on preventative health interventions beyond the budget cycle and beyond the political cycle.</p><p>The ANPHA provided the institutional infrastructure needed to operate an effective and efficient system of preventative health interventions in this country. That is why the establishment of the ANPHA was supported by public health groups like the National Heart Foundation, the Public Health Association, the Cancer Council, VicHealth, Quit Victoria and the Royal College of Physicians, to name just a few. Given this, you would think the value of such a body to Australia would be pretty near to incontrovertible. You would think this would be like debating the merits of motherhood. But no; instead this bill has been caught up in the ideological inanity that is the obsession of those opposite with the 'nanny state'.</p><p>We know the real reason why those opposite are opposed to the ANPHA. It is because preventative health institutions like the ANPHA are opposed by the big food, big tobacco and big alcohol industries. It is the same reason that these measures are so stridently opposed by the Institute of Public Affairs. In fact, the abolition of the ANPHA is No. 29 on the Institute of Public Affairs list, <i>75 radical ideas to transform Australia</i>a list which is rapidly becoming the governing blueprint for what was a craven and substance-less opposition.</p><p>Of course, the IPA's radical ideas list also targets other preventative health initiatives, introduced by my predecessor in the seat of Gellibrand including the repeal of tobacco plain-packaging legislation; the repeal of the so-called alcopops tax; the rejection of proposals for compulsory food and alcohol labelling—we recently saw how well that was managed by the Assistant Minister for Health's office: and the end of all government-funded 'nanny state' advertising, whatever that means.</p><p>I suppose it is a quite radical approach to reject an evidence-based approach to policymaking. I suppose it is a radical approach to disregard expert advice on preventative health policy. But I cannot for the life of me understand it myself. I particularly cannot understand how anyone could think that these are five of the 75 most important issues for our nation. If the IPA revealed the sources of its corporate funding we might be able to draw inferences about the reasons for the prioritisation of these issues but, as it refuses to provide even the most basic transparency about its funding sources, we are left utterly in the dark.</p><p>Of course, it is not just the ANPHA that is being attacked by the Abbott government; preventative health initiatives across the board are currently under attack. Funding for the states and territories for vital preventative health programs has been slashed—programs designed to increase physical activity, improve nutrition and healthy eating and to help people quit smoking and limit their alcohol consumption.</p><p>The Medicare Local system, established by the previous government as a key partner with the ANPHA in enhancing the primary care sector's focus on prevention, will also be abolished. In my electorate our Medicare Local is already playing a key role in delivering preventative health interventions.</p><p>The north-west Melbourne and Macedon Ranges Medicare Local has joined with the Western Bulldogs AFL club to create the 'Sons of the West' Men's Health Program, a community health initiative which is designed to support men living and working in Melbourne's west. Partly based on a similar program run successfully by Liverpool Football Club in the United Kingdom—a place, like Melbourne west, facing major issues with chronic disease—this program aims to engage up to 2,000 men in Melbourne's west to promote healthy living and prevent disease. 'Sons of the West' is an innovative example of how to engage and encourage men to take control of their own health. The 12-week program emphasises activities that are social and fun, and alternates training activities with barbecues, health checks, comedy nights and do-it-yourself training. The men undertaking this program will train with the legends of the Western Bulldogs football team, including Steve Kretiuk, Brad Johnson, Scott West, Doug Hawkins and Tony Liberatore, and will learn how to prepare healthy meals from Jamie Oliver's Ministry of Food.</p><p>At the end of the program, if the men get in good enough shape to drop a shirt size, they will also be rewarded with a free Western Bulldogs guernsey. This program is just one example of the fantastic work our Medicare Locals do in providing tailored and coordinated support to the healthcare needs of our community. Yet, like the ANPHA, our Medicare Local and preventative health interventions of this kind are now facing the axe from the Abbott government.</p><p>Of course, all of these cuts to preventative health also come at the same time that the Abbott government has ripped billions of dollars out of frontline healthcare funding and is attacking the foundations of Medicare through its GP tax. This is a government that promised 'No new taxes,' and then slugged Australians with a $7 GP tax every time they visit the doctor.    This is a government that promised 'No cuts to health' and then ripped billions of dollars in funding from our hospitals.    This is a government that has shifted the costs or passed the buck for health care onto the states and onto the family budgets of low- and middle-income Australians. As a result of these attacks, a typical Australian will pay an extra $270 a year in healthcare costs and even more if they have a chronic condition such as asthma, diabetes or some other form of ongoing disability.</p><p>I can reassure the House that Labor will always be the party of high-quality, affordable health care. We will fight these regressive policies in this chamber. We will also fight them in the other place. We will fight them in our communities in the lead-up to the next election and we will ensure that this government faces a reckoning for these policies. The Australian people did not vote for the Abbott government's attack on our healthcare system at the last election and they do not want it. Over the next two years, before the next election the Labor Party will work to ensure that the Abbott government pays the price for it.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>- The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2014-06-03.114.8 motion] to read the bill for a second time. This means that the majority agreed with the main idea of the the bill and that the House can now discuss it in more detail.[1]
- Alternatively, the House may vote immediately on whether to read the bill for a third time, which would mean the bill would be passed in the House and would now go to the Senate for their consideration.[2]
- ''Background to the bill''
- The bill was introduced to repeal the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/anphaa2010428/ Australian National Preventive Health Agency Act 2010] in order to abolish the [http://www.anpha.gov.au/internet/anpha/publishing.nsf/Content/about-us Australian National Preventive Health Agency].[3] This Agency was established on 1 January 2011 "to provide national capacity to drive preventive health policy and programs".[4]
- References
- * [1] Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law [http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html here].
- * [2] In the case of this bill, the House did decide to read the bill for a third time without further consideration of the bill in more detail (see [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2014-06-03.116.1 here]). This decision was made without division and so is not recorded here on Public Whip (see our [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#division FAQ Section] for more information about divisions and why they are not always called).
- * [3] For more information, including the bill's explanatory memorandum, see [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr5203%22 here].
- * [4] Read more about the Agency on its [http://www.anpha.gov.au/internet/anpha/publishing.nsf/Content/about-us website]. More information on its abolition is available on Radio National's [http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/put-the-cupcake-down3a-cuts-to-preventative-health-funding/5453168 Life Matters].
|