Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share 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.