HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-08-20 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Preventive Health SA (Council Governance) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. S.L. GAME (16:24): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Preventive Health Act 2024.

Second Reading

The Hon. S.L. GAME (16:25): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I rise to speak on the Preventive Health SA (Council Governance) Amendment Bill 2025, an bill to amend the Preventive Health SA Act 2024. Ninety-six per cent of funding for Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration (the TGA) comes from the pharmaceutical industry. That is straight from former Australian of the Year, Dr James Muecke, who also told the recent 2025 Australian Medical Conference that, 'Money from big pharma compromises medical advice, compromises medical research and compromises medical guidelines.' His keynote address also warned that doctors who take money from pharmaceutical companies are more likely to publish research findings favourable to those companies.

In reviewing the government's bill, which embeds preventive health within the SA health system, then crafting our amendment bill, which bolsters the credibility and effectiveness of the new Preventive Health SA Council, we uncovered a recurring theme: compromised experts and conflicted people with no place on so-called independent advisory boards. Dr Muecke, the renowned Australian ophthalmologist, has led the charge in exposing the dangers of this phenomenon. While speaking to us, and during his AMA address in Adelaide, he outlined the compromised goals of many who sit on such advisory boards and the life-threatening consequences of these conflicts.

Still in the shadow of COVID, it will surprise no-one who is prepared to acknowledge the disgracefully heavy-handed approach to Australia's virus response that those influenced by big pharma appear on that list of compromised experts. Big pharma has generated many local examples of self-interest, and not just the safe and effective and efficacy propaganda we were force fed by the government, the medical sector and virtually all mainstream media just a few years ago. Dr Muecke cites an example of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners leadership team being riddled with conflicted doctors, and of the college deliberately downplaying one of just three possible approaches to achieving remission of type 2 diabetes, and I will explain how that happened.

The use of low-calorie diets, using ultraprocessed meal replacements, was prominent in the college's management of type 2 diabetes handbook, as was bariatric surgery. But there is no mention of what Dr Muecke termed arguably the most powerful option, that of therapeutic carbohydrate reduction, using real food. It turns out that 10 of the 11 authors of the handbook have financial ties to big pharma, while nine of the 11 are tied up with Novo Nordisk, promoters of Ozempic, a weight loss medication that has enjoyed a tremendous recent surge in popularity.

Dr Muecke also speaks about the many transgressions of big food and big soda. Among them was a review highlighting that, of 34 studies not sponsored by big soda, 33 showed sugar-loaded beverages are associated with diabetes and type 2 diabetes. However, of the 26 industry-sponsored studies, none showed that same obvious link.

Our amendment bill is an important step towards ensuring the new Preventive Health SA Council restores public faith in the medical industry, faith that for many people was all but destroyed during the COVID era. People lost confidence in the medical industry and, given what we know in 2025, they had every right to do so. Facilitated, boosted and championed by politicians, power hungry bureaucrats and obsequious, biased and shamefully unquestioning media, the medical industry was given a free pass and gifted unblinking but ultimately undeserved public faith. Legitimate questions and lived experience concerns were dismissed as misinformation, including right here in South Australia. These upstarts simply did not fit the narrative, and they still have not received an apology.

Anyone brave enough to poke their head above the parapet was swiftly labelled as an anti-vaxxer and derided, and they saw their credibility eroded quicker than you could say 'flatten the curve'. This tactic was tried on world-renowned cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra, who I met in 2023. Initially supportive of the coronavirus vaccines, Dr Malhotra's turning point was the untimely death of his father, combined with the growing body of evidence suggesting that certain COVID vaccines were contributing to an alarming rise in disability and excess deaths.

When he visited South Australia that year, the Adelaide Advertiser called him an anti-vaxxer and even criticised individuals for attending his presentation. He subsequently warned that such personal attacks, which ignored the data, would inevitably lead to public distrust and a downturn in overall vaccine uptake. He was right, but, just weeks ago, Dr Malhotra opined that eroding trust in health care was a good thing, for patients at least. He argued that a decline in trust in health systems across Australia, the US and the UK had opened up wider thinking about how individuals can improve their health. He said that people are now asking more questions—questions they were reluctant to pose before the great COVID con.

Dr Malhotra told The Australian newspaper that health care has been over-medicalised and lacks transparency. He also believes lifestyle changes should be first-line treatments for low-risk people, rather than reflexively reaching for medications such as cholesterol-lowering statins.

These examples and many others propelled one of our crucial amendments, which is to ensure that those sitting on this new body, flagged by the government as an independent agency, are never compromised and are indeed independent rather than merely labelled so—in short, safeguarding the new council's credibility. Why is this so important? It is because hand-in-glove aspirations of independence and transparency are critical if the government wants the council to be fit for purpose.

Dr Muecke, along with South Australian based clinical nutritionist Tim Jaeger, both warned us of the difficulties of attempting to manage a compromised member. In short, it just does not work, because they will always be compromised and even subconsciously always be predisposed to having their views and actions influenced by money and/or a favour. So let's make it more difficult to put them there in the first place. Why? Because independence and transparency are mandatory prerequisites for the council to achieve its well-intentioned goals and to gain public trust. Without the latter, the former is impossible.

The council will focus on factors that contribute to the burden of non-communicable health conditions and injuries, such as tobacco and vaping, alcohol and other drugs, obesity, unhealthy diets, physical inactivity and poor mental health.

In our view, the existing act fails to provide adequate protections to guarantee that the best possible members sit on this council. By 'the best' we do not necessarily mean those with the most impressive sounding track record of previous advisory role positions. Our definition of 'the best' is those who can deliver the best results, unburdened by any outside influences, and it includes, via our amendments, those with experience in delivering health interventions and measuring outcomes.

Through our amendment to add another important detail to the act, we wish to ensure the council must include those with hands-on experience in health outcomes, those with clinical translation and implementation. Clinical translation and implementation simply means clinical experts with practical experience in the field, experience in implementing health interventions and experience in measuring outcomes of these health interventions.

It is alarming to think that compulsory representation from this group was missing from the original legislation. Yet the legislation says that the council must have people with experience in finance, economics or business, for example, and people with experience in cultural leadership for healing and improving the wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons, and so on. So we think including people with clinical expertise is very important. Indeed, it was the missing link in the existing legislation—the link between the council and those South Australians whose health we are striving to improve.

I believe this council must be established squeaky clean, above any suspicion and equipped with clinical experts who have experience in implementing preventive actions and measuring their success. Our amendments go to those important objectives.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT