Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

We are here today debating the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2006 as a government response to the Uhrig review of governance into Australian research, but first I would report on the research community’s significant and positive response to the 2006 budget announcement of $905 being injected into research. Obviously, it followed that that substantial and significant injection was widely acknowledged and highly regarded at medical research dinners around the country.

Together with that announcement came an award. On Thursday night, Professor Tien Wong from the Royal Victoria Eye and Ear Hospital—a young clinician scientist at the Centre for Eye Research Australia at the University of Melbourne—was acknowledged as an outstanding role model for clinicians. Tien, at the age of just 38, is developing a $6 million retinal vascular imaging centre. He is responsible for a number of multidisciplinary collaborative papers in that area and has worked to develop a centre that links 15 research institutes together, both in Australia regionally and the US. The potential work of Australian researchers at this institution is significant. It has linked heart disease with hypertension, which are leading causes of death in this country. That is why the award to Professor Tien Wong was received so warmly in Melbourne when presented by Minister Fran Bailey. That award recognises the achievement of Australia’s finest young scientist and he is in extremely good company.

Great talent in medical research needs to be backed up by resources; without those, that wonderful work is impossible. The Australian government over 10 years has increased medical research funding substantially, even as a proportion of GDP, and the allocation made in the last budget continues that. Most OECD economies are making substantial strides in health and medical research funding. It is interesting to look at the United States, where a substantial jump in funding that started in 1998 has now levelled off significantly. The lesson we take from that is that, in any area where we choose to increase funding, that commitment has to be sustained. There is no point in making large flashy claims in an individual year, if they cannot be followed up in the years to come.

In Australia’s case there have been consistent increases, a doubling of funding in many cases. Let me take you back to when this government began in 1996: the total budget for health and medical research was $127 million, a paltry sum in comparison. Since then, there have been substantial increases in infrastructure, in bringing on new, talented researchers and providing the fellowships that bring great minds back to this country, and in a boost to both the ARC and the NHMRC. The $500 million boost over four years takes me back to 2002, when some of the most strenuous cases being put to the government were to increase and to continue the commitment to health and medical research. I am pleased to say that that work was extraordinarily effective. If there is a lesson on how to secure such increases in funding, it was done superbly by groups such as ASMR and others who were able to convince and lobby so effectively to see these very worthwhile increases secured.

The fellowships to which I referred are for 50 to 65 senior research positions, costing $170 million over nine years. It is worth remembering that to bring the greatest minds back to this country often requires an enormous amount of clinical support, research support and infrastructure, and for that we rely upon the support of state governments to provide a lot of the platform to do it. The additional funding is also being directed through the NHMRC. The response to the Wills review was significant, the doubling of funding that occurred over forward estimates in 2001 was significant and what happened in the last budget was a continuation of that.

What is also important is the establishment of a research fellowship scheme. That will complement a number of schemes that already exist to make sure that we keep the best brains in health and medical research working right here in this country. One area that was mentioned by the opposition spokesperson was adult stem cell research. It was suggested that that sort of research might be under threat. That could not be further from the truth. We have world-class researchers in stem cell development in Melbourne. It was the National Adult Stem Cell Research Centre, with a particular focus on Parkinson’s disease, motor neurone disease and schizophrenia, that was the recipient of $20 million over four years.

In addition, a number of our finest medical research centres have been given significant infrastructure boosts. I would like to highlight the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, but also the Brain and Mind Research Institute received $10 million. Two hundred million dollars was provided over seven years to fund overhead infrastructure in a range of Australia’s finest independent medical research facilities, and $31 million was announced for the medical research infrastructure initiative in last year’s budget.

What we do have, apart from a significant jump in funding for medical research with the announcement by the Treasurer in the 2006-07 budget, is a call to arms for young researchers to never forget that there is no such thing as earmarked funding and no such thing as guaranteed funding formulas that assure you of a source of funding forever in areas as important as medical research. What became very clear to me as I worked quite closely with those who were seeking increases in funding was that researchers are not a group that seeks approbation every day, that they are not a sector of society that constantly seeks self-congratulation. Rarely do they get the approbation that they deserve, but they do essential work that is vital.

It is quite easy for an economy to choose to free-ride and rely on the invention and the ingenuity of others, but that is not what Australia does. We have a fine reputation for research. We have a great challenge to commercialise our great ideas. Thomas Barlow wrote a recent book on this very topic, saying that Australia punches above its weight. I would not say substantially so because I would not want to overstate the case, but Australia does an excellent job in its contribution to health and medical research and, in particular, to biotechnology.

I think it would be somewhat of an overstatement to say that the reforms that have been presented in today’s bill in some way fail to enshrine peer review, threaten to undermine it and may risk politicisation. While I can understand the sentiment from the other side of the chamber that they fear this may occur, let us be honest: just by further streamlining what is already a very efficient machine should never be seen instantly as an attempt to remove transparency or as something sinister. I think that is perhaps reflecting a little paranoia from the other side of the chamber, given that the record of health and medical research in the early 1990s was not such the warm story that it has become in the last 10 years.

I should leave the final word with those who are working at the coalface, with those who contributed to the very successful last triennium that closed with its final meeting about a month ago. On behalf of both sides of the chamber, I thank those who have made incredible contributions over three years to health and medical research—to Professor John Shine, Kerry Breen, Adele Green and Judith Whitworth, already eminent figures who, over and above their research work, have made it their mission to ensure that Australia leads the way in research. I encourage younger researchers to fill their footsteps and spend just a small proportion of their excellent clinical and research careers in ensuring that Australian research remains at the top of world outputs, as it is at the moment. For those reasons, I support both Australia’s performance in health and medical research and this bill.

See this speech in context