West Australian MP Dennis Jensen , a former scientist, criticised his colleagues for cutting funding for scientific research in other areas and favouring the new fund.
“I just think quite frankly it’s incoherent, for one side to have an increase in funding and on the other side to have cuts,” Dr Jensen told journalists on Wednesday morning.
Minister for Health Peter Dutton said Dr Jensen was entitled to his views on the fund.
“You can’t blame him for holding back, that’s fair enough,” he said.
“My view is very strongly that given by 2050 in our country there will be thousands of Australians each week diagnosed with diseases of the brain, it’s incumbent upon us to enhance the medical research investment that we make now. I make no apology for that whatsoever.”
During a Senate committee hearing Finance Minister Mathias Cormann claimed the $20 billion investment would lead to savings in the long-term as cures for costly diseases were found.
“There is an actual structural effect here in terms of the way we manage our public finances . . . as well as being able to invest in high quality healthcare for the future,” Senator Cormann said.
“In a purely finance-relevant sense, we are achieving a lower recurrent spending growth trajectory.”
Mr Dutton said the fund had the overwhelming support of the medical research community and was a potential boost to export earnings.
“There is absolutely necessary health gain out of that money,” he said. “People shouldn’t underestimate the economic benefit that can flow from it.”
The government has given little detail on how the medical research fund may operate, though Mr Dutton has hinted it will follow processes set by the existing National Health and Medical Research Council.
Budget papers state the establishment of the fund is contingent on the passage of legislation for health savings set out in the budget.
Hopes the controversial $7 co-payment on GP visits, pathology tests and imaging will pass the Senate after July 1 were dealt a further blow on Wednesday, when Clive Palmer confirmed his four senators would not vote for it.
Mr Dutton on Wednesday avoided questions about what would happen to the research fund if the $7 co-payment was not passed through the Senate.
“We decided $7 was a fair pricing point. That’s the policy we have decided upon, and we’ll fight very strongly for it because I believe it is the only way we can strengthen Medicare going forward,” Mr Dutton said.
Mr Dutton appeared to rule out softening the co-pay proposal to a means-testing model, so those on lower incomes were exempt.
“You saw it in times past with Family Tax Benefit . . . that people’s income can fluctuate under and over thresholds each year.
“I think that adds a layer of complexity which then is ongoing in terms of who is eligible for services and who is not,” he said.