Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Federal/State Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in the debate on the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Amendment Bill 2007 first of all to make clear, on behalf of the opposition, that we support this bill. It is, in its immediate implication, an uncontroversial bill, although I will have some things to say about the underlying report that drives it. I mainly want to indicate my general view about the organisation whose administrative arrangements we are amending here. It is an organisation for which I have a very soft spot and of which I am a strong supporter.

Firstly, I go to the bill itself. The amendments are in response to what was officially known as the Review of the Corporate Governance of Statutory Authorities and Office Holders, but what is known in the vernacular as the Uhrig report. That report has led to a series of changes to many pieces of legislation and, in this particular instance, to change the administration of the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, otherwise known as ACIAR. The bill does not alter the research program or the broader public policy outputs of ACIAR but is designed to improve the administration of ACIAR and to bring it in line with the manner in which other government entities are administered.

While supporting the bill I want to make it very clear that I have very profound reservations about the Uhrig report. I have expressed those here in the parliament before. I thought it led to a very unwise decision with regard to the board of Austrade and I think the general application of the Uhrig report has not been generally beneficial to public administration. But I support the bill for two reasons. Firstly, I support the bill because within reasonable limits governments should be able to put in place the administrative arrangements they choose for the bodies for which they are responsible. We expect ministers to be accountable to the parliament for government agencies; therefore they should be able to manage them in the manner that they see as appropriate from a legislative point of view. That is not a blank cheque—there can be circumstances in which that would not be appropriate—but even in the case of Austrade, where I strongly disagreed with the decision to abolish the board, flowing from the Uhrig report, I supported the legislation because the incumbent ought to be able to make such arrangements if it chooses. If an incoming government wants to create a board for Austrade, that is not going to be a difficulty. For that reason I would not oppose this bill.

Secondly, in this case the changes to the administrative arrangements for ACIAR are more apparent than real. It is an attempt to create the impression of implementing the Uhrig report by abolishing the board and creating a commission. The parliamentary secretary in his second reading speech said:

ACIAR will retain its capacity for collective decision making (through the new commission) while bringing its management under the CEO.

He really means, ‘We’ve made no effective change at all.’ I do not say that as a criticism, because I am not sure there needed to be a change. As I have said, I am not a big fan of Uhrig, but nevertheless ACIAR will continue to be an effectively administered body under this new legislation, and I support it.

The debate on the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Amendment Bill 2007 gives me an opportunity to say something about the excellent work that ACIAR does. ACIAR was founded in 1982, and the original bill had within it a sunset clause because there was some doubt about whether it would prove, over the medium term, to be an effective instrument for enhancing Australia’s support for agricultural research in developing countries. Midway through that original sunset clause period the then management of ACIAR decided to conduct a preliminary review of its progress and achievements so that it could judge for itself whether it was on track for passing the hurdle that the sunset clause provided in the original legislation.

I had the opportunity to participate in that review as a then backbench senator in 1989. I found it extremely interesting. It was quite an insight for me. I knew something of the operations of ACIAR but had no particular expertise in the area, and I found it very insightful. Since that time I have been a very strong advocate for, and supporter of, ACIAR and its role. I have always found it to have strong bipartisan support in the parliament. As far as I know there has never been any effective criticism from either side of parliament about the ongoing role which it plays—most particularly, in its focus in assisting the agricultural development of developing countries by applying the capacity of Australia’s agricultural research institutions—or about the flow-on benefit to Australian agriculture from the quality and character of the research undertaken jointly by Australian research institutes and their partner organisations in developing countries.

In its final report, that external review which I participated in lauded the high standing that ACIAR had already achieved in six years in the field of international agricultural research. Other members of the panel were from many of the other international agricultural research organisations and they had already regarded ACIAR as a leading member of that international agricultural research community. With very few exceptions, this positive reaction was reflected in the views of all who had been associated with ACIAR, whether as participants in collaborative projects, members of sister institutions or Australian participants. A great deal of what ACIAR does was judged to be excellent, and that was the panel’s conclusion. I thought it was a proper and welcome sign of confidence in its structure and operations that ACIAR opened itself, on a continuing basis, to effective scrutiny. A number of recommendations were made at that time. There have been subsequent reviews of overseas aid programs, such as the Simons review and the recent white paper review. The director of ACIAR has also independently commissioned a number of reviews of particular aspects of ACIAR’s operations and programs.

From all the evidence that I have seen from 1989 to the present day—the scrutiny, the surveys, the reports and the international assessments—and from what I have seen when visiting other countries to look at the work that ACIAR has done in conjunction with research institutes in partner countries, there seems to be a high level of support and recognition of the quality of ACIAR’s work, and its research seems to have a high level of impact. It is very practical, very targeted and very much about achieving serious results and improving agricultural performance in developing countries. As I say, these projects have often had a useful spin-off for Australian agriculture as well. That is not ACIAR’s primary purpose, but it is a welcome secondary objective. It is because of the cooperative way the research institutions work together that that can flow.

The centre encourages Australia’s agricultural scientists to use their skills for the benefit of developing countries and Australia. ACIAR funds research projects that are developed within a framework reflecting the priorities of Australia’s aid program and national research strengths together with the agricultural research and development priorities of partner countries. The ACIAR mandate directs activities to developing countries in five regions: Papua New Guinea and the Pacific Islands, South-East Asia, North Asia, South Asia and southern Africa. Research is also allocated across regions through funding to the international agricultural research centres.

ACIAR’s functions continue to be to commission research into improving sustainable agricultural production in developing countries; to fund project related training; importantly, to communicate the results of that funded research; to conduct and fund development activities related to research programs; and to administer the Australian government’s contribution to the international agricultural research centres around the world. The goal of sustainable agricultural production is particularly important to Australia’s aid program. I have been concerned that broadly the Australian aid program has lost its focus. The appropriate focus for Australia’s aid program, which should be poverty reduction, has been lost as too many other objectives have been pursued. But I think ACIAR is one of those agencies that remain focused on providing practical assistance to improve the living standards of people in developing countries. According to Francois Bourguignon, the Senior Vice-President and Chief Economist at the World Bank:

Growth in agriculture makes a disproportionately positive contribution to reducing poverty. More than half of the population in developing countries lives in rural areas, where poverty is most extreme.

So the focus that ACIAR has on improving agricultural production is very much a part of an intelligent, poverty focused research program.

Across the board in Australia’s aid program, funding for rural development has fallen. We are seeing a belated but welcome increase in Australia’s aid program, but it is still only 0.3 per cent of GNI—way below internationally accepted targets and below the performance of most comparable countries. Even with that, funding for rural development in Australia’s aid program has fallen and, on the face of it, based on the budget papers, funding for ACIAR has fallen.

I support the bill. I am confident the House will support the bill because it is in many ways simply an administrative tidy-up against the government’s management priorities to bring ACIAR into line with changes that have been made to a large number of government agencies. To conclude as I began, I am not a great fan of the Uhrig report—I am not a great fan of the things that it has done for public administration across the board—but for two reasons I support the bill: firstly, because the government is entitled to have the administrative structures it seeks to put in place to run agencies for which it is accountable and, secondly, because, as they relate to ACIAR, the changes are more apparent than real. The commission will continue to be able to provide the advice and collective decision making that the board has done in the past. I do not think that these structural changes will in any way enhance the performance of ACIAR, but they will in no way impede its capacity to continue to provide to the people of Australia and the people of developing countries in our broader region the sort of valuable support in agricultural research that has been the hallmark of 25 years of good work by ACIAR. I have over the years had many friends who have worked in this organisation, and I have many friends who, having worked there, are now putting in substantial and important work around the world to enhance agricultural production in developing countries. As a credit to the work of those people and all the others who have worked and continue to work in ACIAR, I am pleased to have the opportunity to support this bill.

See this speech in context